San Francisco decriminalizes psychedelics(doubleblindmag.com)
doubleblindmag.com
San Francisco decriminalizes psychedelics
https://doubleblindmag.com/san-francisco-decriminalizes-psychedelics/
480 comments
FWIW there were deaths caused by the MKULTRA program[1], but the implication that LSD caused the deaths is probably not correct.
This is sort of just a historical dump since it’s a fascinating story: The notable death people remember is the Army officer who “jumped” out of his hotel window in NYC. Years later the Watergate investigation revealed the MKULTRA program and connected it to the Army officer’s death. CIA sort of implied “yeah we were doing stuff with LSD mind control and he went crazy,” but some (like the officer’s son) believe that is also a cover story. AFAIK the son still believes his father was going to blow the whistle on some sort of chem or bio weapon development (the father was a scientist at Fort Detrick, the US military’s bioweapon development center at the time) and he was assassinated before going public.
Anyway, the son’s theory almost seems like the most believable part of the whole MKULTRA universe.
[1] Among MKULTRA’s damage is arguably the creation of the Unabomber. Ted was an unknowing test subject at Harvard where he was basically emotionally tortured by a CIA agent posing as a fellow student. He had his beliefs — which he was always strongly identified with — systematically dismantled in order to cause emotional distress.
This is sort of just a historical dump since it’s a fascinating story: The notable death people remember is the Army officer who “jumped” out of his hotel window in NYC. Years later the Watergate investigation revealed the MKULTRA program and connected it to the Army officer’s death. CIA sort of implied “yeah we were doing stuff with LSD mind control and he went crazy,” but some (like the officer’s son) believe that is also a cover story. AFAIK the son still believes his father was going to blow the whistle on some sort of chem or bio weapon development (the father was a scientist at Fort Detrick, the US military’s bioweapon development center at the time) and he was assassinated before going public.
Anyway, the son’s theory almost seems like the most believable part of the whole MKULTRA universe.
[1] Among MKULTRA’s damage is arguably the creation of the Unabomber. Ted was an unknowing test subject at Harvard where he was basically emotionally tortured by a CIA agent posing as a fellow student. He had his beliefs — which he was always strongly identified with — systematically dismantled in order to cause emotional distress.
For anyone who wants a good background "Poisoner in Chief" is a maddening and captivating read that describes much of the CIA's use of LSD: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/43565322-poisoner-in-chi...
It's been suggested that the experiments were a part of MKULTRA, but it's not been proven AFAIK.
There was plenty of unethical psychological research going on at the time, so there's no need to assume the CIA was involved at all.
There was plenty of unethical psychological research going on at the time, so there's no need to assume the CIA was involved at all.
Ah yes this looks more correct, I was mistaken. Apparently TedK was subjected to these experiments by a professor who also happened to have been employed by US intelligence but it’s unclear whether the experiment was part of MKULTRA itself. Thanks for the correction!
Errol Morris made a docu-drama series about those events. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wormwood_(miniseries)
Errol is the father of Hamilton Morris, author of the Vice series Hamilton’s Pharmacopeia.
Best TIL of the day, thanks for noting that!
They also used massive doses of LSD combined with electroshocks and managed to entirely wipe some patients’ memories, this person describing their experience is pretty mind-blowing:
- relevant section ends at 1:01:15: https://youtu.be/4-DMH_myil8?t=1h20s
- continues for another crazy 20s: https://youtu.be/4-DMH_myil8?t=1h3m30s
- relevant section ends at 1:01:15: https://youtu.be/4-DMH_myil8?t=1h20s
- continues for another crazy 20s: https://youtu.be/4-DMH_myil8?t=1h3m30s
Ken Kesey of merry pranksters fame "discovered" LSD via being a volunteer in the CIA's MKUltra experiments. So, interestingly, the CIA's experiments were one of the major triggers for the whole 60s counterculture.
They used to try.. then they succeeded with some of their research, rolled it into the private sector, and closed the official record with the notion that it was a waste of time.
Didn't they also make a whole town on France tripping without consent?
>Didn't they also make a whole town on France tripping without consent?
Are you sure that wasn't just ergot poisoning[0]?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergot#Effects_on_humans,_other...
Are you sure that wasn't just ergot poisoning[0]?
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergot#Effects_on_humans,_other...
I am talking about this:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-10996838
The way it happened doesn't really sound like classical ergot poisoning. But who knows (but them)
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-10996838
The way it happened doesn't really sound like classical ergot poisoning. But who knows (but them)
Sure. It's possible, but as the article you linked noted:
That doesn't mean it didn't happen (or that the CIA wouldn't have done such a thing -- they've done much worse), but the "evidence" is pretty thin IMHO.
But American academic Professor Steven Kaplan, who published
a book in 2008 on the Pont-Saint-Esprit incident, insists
that neither ergot nor LSD could have been responsible.
Ergot contamination would not, he says, have affected only
one sack of grain in one bakery, as was claimed here. The
outbreak would have been far more widespread.
He rules out LSD on the grounds that the symptoms people
suffered, though similar, do not quite fit the drug.
That doesn't mean it didn't happen (or that the CIA wouldn't have done such a thing -- they've done much worse), but the "evidence" is pretty thin IMHO.
What a long strange trip it's been!
Years ago I interacted with hippies openly selling commercial-looking individually wrapped chocolates containing psilocybin in Golden Gate Park.
This is San Francisco we're talking about, psychedelics already weren't a priority for the police in any practical sense.
This is San Francisco we're talking about, psychedelics already weren't a priority for the police in any practical sense.
True, but to many, the destigmatization and the recognition of practical uses is still important.
It's super important because it's really hard to do research with controlled substances.
E.g. MDMA was a widely used substance in psychoterapy before 1980 (they used it to "open" patients before sessions), but it got banned and almost nobody could carry on with their research. Without research, you cannot claim practical uses and be taken seriously. And pharmas are not interested in spending on some product that they can't market anyway.
E.g. MDMA was a widely used substance in psychoterapy before 1980 (they used it to "open" patients before sessions), but it got banned and almost nobody could carry on with their research. Without research, you cannot claim practical uses and be taken seriously. And pharmas are not interested in spending on some product that they can't market anyway.
They used to call it "Adam" when it was sold openly in Dallas, TX bars before it got emergency scheduled and banned in '85. Only had a brief year or so legally before it called down the crackhouse on its popularity then was banhammered federally and kicked.
https://maps.org/news/media/playboy-ecstasy-was-legal-in-198...
https://maps.org/news/media/playboy-ecstasy-was-legal-in-198...
> It's super important because it's really hard to do research with controlled substances.
> And pharmas are not interested in spending on some product that they can't market anyway
What do you mean? That pharma companies only develop drugs that don't require prescriptions? As far as I know at least that's kind of their main business.
What do you mean? That pharma companies only develop drugs that don't require prescriptions? As far as I know at least that's kind of their main business.
My text was unclear. Lets suppose some pharma researchs MDMA, and finds that it is useful against depression. With any other non controlled substance, they could mass market it in 5 years. With MDMA it would be delayed, and then delayed a bit more, and then banned in some places, and then only available in some specific cases where other substances doesn't work.
Just look at the history of ketamine: known since 1970, it's controlled until 2000's when finally is found to work better than anything against depression. But even today it isn't marketed, unlike hundreds of antidepressants known to have worse secondary effects and be less effective. Reason? Some people might have fun with it.
Just look at the history of ketamine: known since 1970, it's controlled until 2000's when finally is found to work better than anything against depression. But even today it isn't marketed, unlike hundreds of antidepressants known to have worse secondary effects and be less effective. Reason? Some people might have fun with it.
I don't understand your argument. Most active ingredients/medicines/chemicals that have some sort of effect on people (good or bad) are more or less controlled. Their are called medicines (drugs) and are under subscription (also during research and clinical trials they are under strict control). You can think cancer medicine, HIV medicine, insulin, whatever.
Just because some medicines have kind of happy or fun or hallucinating effects don't make them more or less controlled.
And your argument about MDMA, it's already a developed medicine which is available under subscription. Why do you talk about delays?
And most medicines take more than 5 years to develop and release to market (also those without funny side effects sought after by drug abusers).
It's funny how you talk about ketamine being not 'marketed'. Why should a drug be marketed? It's a medical doctor who should subscribe it to patients he sees has a need for it. For sure medical companies might market it to doctors, but overall drugs should not be 'marketed'. Just see the issue with Purdue Pharma and the opioid crisis in the US.
Just because some medicines have kind of happy or fun or hallucinating effects don't make them more or less controlled.
And your argument about MDMA, it's already a developed medicine which is available under subscription. Why do you talk about delays?
And most medicines take more than 5 years to develop and release to market (also those without funny side effects sought after by drug abusers).
It's funny how you talk about ketamine being not 'marketed'. Why should a drug be marketed? It's a medical doctor who should subscribe it to patients he sees has a need for it. For sure medical companies might market it to doctors, but overall drugs should not be 'marketed'. Just see the issue with Purdue Pharma and the opioid crisis in the US.
You should read about scheduled drugs before asserting "Just because some medicines have kind of happy or fun or hallucinating effects don't make them more or less controlled." Specially, the list I, one of its conditions is "The drug or other substance has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States."
Turns out MDMA is on list I, despite being used medically for a decade without problems. Currently there's no MDMA available, at least in the USA, under subscription nor prescription. It seems that is being researched, with extreme difficulties for being in list I, as a remedy for PTSD.
I'm done with this thread.
Turns out MDMA is on list I, despite being used medically for a decade without problems. Currently there's no MDMA available, at least in the USA, under subscription nor prescription. It seems that is being researched, with extreme difficulties for being in list I, as a remedy for PTSD.
I'm done with this thread.
[deleted]
Those chocolates were created by a good friend of mine. He lived near the park. His name was Marcello. Super interesting guy who had a huge heart.
He had a Harley motorcycle that he accidentally dropped while moving it for street cleaning, and injured his back trying to pick up.
Sadly, after a very risky surgery to fix the injury, that was completely botched, he got addicted to oxycontin and eventually took his life.
There are a lot more stories there, but I'll leave it as that for now.
RIP Marcello.
He had a Harley motorcycle that he accidentally dropped while moving it for street cleaning, and injured his back trying to pick up.
Sadly, after a very risky surgery to fix the injury, that was completely botched, he got addicted to oxycontin and eventually took his life.
There are a lot more stories there, but I'll leave it as that for now.
RIP Marcello.
hah still a thing, and now they do delivery and have punchcards.
Supposedly one of them works with a prof at Berkeley to make their product
Supposedly one of them works with a prof at Berkeley to make their product
A line that is repeated by any LSD dealer in any college town...
Because it's often true, and was universally true for late-Xers, early-Millennials?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Leonard_Pickard
Back then (the 90s), LSD was $2/hit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Leonard_Pickard
Back then (the 90s), LSD was $2/hit.
The wholesale price of LSD is currently under $2/hit.
That was retail in the 90s, but considering inflation that sounds like we're finally getting back to Pickard pricing. My local sources run an order of magnitude higher.
edit, for anyone curious about 90s wholesale: "Government informant Skinner testified that Petaluma Al and the largest wholesale customers of Pickard paid 29 cents per 100 µg dose, which would put the cost at around $2.97 million for a kilogram of LSD."
edit: I'm annoyed by the math used in this quote. They couldn't say $2.9 million or "around" $3 million?
edit, for anyone curious about 90s wholesale: "Government informant Skinner testified that Petaluma Al and the largest wholesale customers of Pickard paid 29 cents per 100 µg dose, which would put the cost at around $2.97 million for a kilogram of LSD."
edit: I'm annoyed by the math used in this quote. They couldn't say $2.9 million or "around" $3 million?
A kg of pure lsd would be a site to behold. I don’t know how you could even handle it in any semi-safe way.
somehow I can't reply to djhn's comment, but what makes large amounts of LSD unsafe is how readily it gets absorbed into the blood stream through the skin in amounts that are metabolically massive. Look up "thumbprinting"
That's mostly a myth, it's not very well absorbed through the skin at all.
For a thumbprint, you still put your thumb on your tongue and lick it. But it's important to keep in mind that only very rarely have people actually done thumbprints. Those are mostly stories, legends, and artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take them as fact.
For a thumbprint, you still put your thumb on your tongue and lick it. But it's important to keep in mind that only very rarely have people actually done thumbprints. Those are mostly stories, legends, and artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take them as fact.
Albert Hoffman discovered LSD by accidentally absorbing it through his fingertips. [0]
> While re-synthesizing LSD, he accidentally absorbed a small amount of the drug through his fingertips and discovered its powerful effects.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_LSD#Discovery
> While re-synthesizing LSD, he accidentally absorbed a small amount of the drug through his fingertips and discovered its powerful effects.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_LSD#Discovery
How much was Hoffman working with though? The absorptivity needn't be high when the potency is so high.
From LSD - My Problem Child, pt. "Discovery of the Psychic Effects of LSD":
"Nevertheless, in the spring of 1943, I repeated the synthesis of LSD-25. As in the first synthesis, this involved the production of only a few centigrams of the compound."
"In the final step of the synthesis, during the purification and crystallization of lysergic acid diethylamide in the form of a tartrate (tartaric acid salt), I was interrupted in my work by unusual sensations."
...
"But this led to another question: how had I managed to absorb this material? Because of the known toxicity of ergot substances, I always maintained meticulously neat work habits. Possibly a bit of the LSD solution had contacted my fingertips during crystallization, and a trace of the substance was absorbed through the skin. If LSD-25 had indeed been the cause of this bizarre experience, then it must be a substance of extraordinary potency."
"Nevertheless, in the spring of 1943, I repeated the synthesis of LSD-25. As in the first synthesis, this involved the production of only a few centigrams of the compound."
"In the final step of the synthesis, during the purification and crystallization of lysergic acid diethylamide in the form of a tartrate (tartaric acid salt), I was interrupted in my work by unusual sensations."
...
"But this led to another question: how had I managed to absorb this material? Because of the known toxicity of ergot substances, I always maintained meticulously neat work habits. Possibly a bit of the LSD solution had contacted my fingertips during crystallization, and a trace of the substance was absorbed through the skin. If LSD-25 had indeed been the cause of this bizarre experience, then it must be a substance of extraordinary potency."
idk, the rainbow family (lsd distribution network) requiring inductees to take a thumbprint to test that they aren't cops and see if they can handle the inevitable accidental dosing that can occur when laying blotter makes a lot of sense to me.
I wouldn't assert that it's 'fact' but seems very plausible. (A full 'thumbprint' is probably uncommon, but ingesting a visible amount of crystal from a fingertip seems believable)
I wouldn't assert that it's 'fact' but seems very plausible. (A full 'thumbprint' is probably uncommon, but ingesting a visible amount of crystal from a fingertip seems believable)
Oh it's very well absorbed through the skin, and not a myth at all, and can be easily searched many places online.
We would routinely put this to the test.
Not only is it absorbed through the skin, but it takes longer to start and end the trip. We would do it on purpose for a longer/more intense trip if we were say camping for the weekend.
We would routinely put this to the test.
Not only is it absorbed through the skin, but it takes longer to start and end the trip. We would do it on purpose for a longer/more intense trip if we were say camping for the weekend.
You would solely take LSD by putting it on unbroken skin? Multiple LSD chemists have confirmed this is a myth.
An esteemed underground LSD chemist arrested in '05, Donnie Shackelford, is quoted in an unfinished book on black market LSD production by Tim Scully. Here's an excerpt from the interview.
>Tim Scully said, "Did you ever get dosed through your skin in the lab". Donnie Shackelford replied, "No, I have accidentally dosed myself while laying sheets, I either touched my eye, or mouth. But the answer to your question is no, you cannot be dosed through the skin. I never wore gloves in any procedure unless lye is used and it isn’t in this procedure. I learned the hard way dropping a flask with 20g of LSD in it. I was extremely upset. I’ve had it all over my hands many, many times. I was there when Dr. Nichols basically called bullshit on the good doctor at Mindstates 60th anniversary".
This is the Mindstates talk by David Nichols https://erowid.org/general/conferences/conference_mindstates...
>"Another fact: I've made LSD in my lab on many occasions for research purposes, possibly in not so meticulous a manner as Albert Hofmann. Nothing ever happened. I had several graduate students who made LSD as an intermediate for projects. No accidental ingestion of LSD ever occurred. A technician in my lab makes it routinely because we use it as a drug to train our rats. He's learned by experience that he never gets high, nothing ever happens. And yesterday I was talking to Nick Sand, and Nick said, "I made a solution of LSD in DMSO…" -- DMSO (dimethyl sulfoxide) is a chemical that greatly enhances absorption of other chemicals through the skin -- he says, "…I painted it on my skin. Nothing happened." A concentrated solution and nothing happened!"
An esteemed underground LSD chemist arrested in '05, Donnie Shackelford, is quoted in an unfinished book on black market LSD production by Tim Scully. Here's an excerpt from the interview.
>Tim Scully said, "Did you ever get dosed through your skin in the lab". Donnie Shackelford replied, "No, I have accidentally dosed myself while laying sheets, I either touched my eye, or mouth. But the answer to your question is no, you cannot be dosed through the skin. I never wore gloves in any procedure unless lye is used and it isn’t in this procedure. I learned the hard way dropping a flask with 20g of LSD in it. I was extremely upset. I’ve had it all over my hands many, many times. I was there when Dr. Nichols basically called bullshit on the good doctor at Mindstates 60th anniversary".
This is the Mindstates talk by David Nichols https://erowid.org/general/conferences/conference_mindstates...
>"Another fact: I've made LSD in my lab on many occasions for research purposes, possibly in not so meticulous a manner as Albert Hofmann. Nothing ever happened. I had several graduate students who made LSD as an intermediate for projects. No accidental ingestion of LSD ever occurred. A technician in my lab makes it routinely because we use it as a drug to train our rats. He's learned by experience that he never gets high, nothing ever happens. And yesterday I was talking to Nick Sand, and Nick said, "I made a solution of LSD in DMSO…" -- DMSO (dimethyl sulfoxide) is a chemical that greatly enhances absorption of other chemicals through the skin -- he says, "…I painted it on my skin. Nothing happened." A concentrated solution and nothing happened!"
[deleted]
Chemistry and LSD newbie question: what would make it unsafe?
A kilogram is a lot, considering LSD is active at microgram doses, although in practice there are labs producing and handling kilograms of it.
LSD in powder form is readily available on the black market. Expensive (because you don't just go and ask to buy only 1mg of LSD powder), but not exceptionally unsafe or rare.
Now the people who handle Fentanyl and Fentanyl analogues, those probably want to triple check their gloves and mask before putting them on.
LSD in powder form is readily available on the black market. Expensive (because you don't just go and ask to buy only 1mg of LSD powder), but not exceptionally unsafe or rare.
Now the people who handle Fentanyl and Fentanyl analogues, those probably want to triple check their gloves and mask before putting them on.
> in practice there are labs producing and handling kilograms of it.
Really? I doubt it. 1kg is about 10 million doses (@100ug each). I don't think there are enough people gobbling acid for there to be labs producing on that scale per batch. The cost of making a mistake with a batch that big would be quite high.
Really? I doubt it. 1kg is about 10 million doses (@100ug each). I don't think there are enough people gobbling acid for there to be labs producing on that scale per batch. The cost of making a mistake with a batch that big would be quite high.
That's been thoroughly debunked by Derek Lowe: https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/fainting-fentanyl-...
I think OP didn't mean that you can absorb fentanyl through the skin but rather that you'd have trace amounts of fentanyl (or even the more powerful analogues such as carfentanyl) on your hands and then touch your mouth or eyes. That can certainly kill you.
May I debunk that debunking ?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolokol-1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kolokol-1
it'll go through skin, and if you spilled a bunch on an ungloved hand you're going to be going for a ride, which is of course the origin of the 'bicycle day' itself and the discovery of LSD.
of course, many things are not safe on the skin and that's not uniquely dangerous, really
of course, many things are not safe on the skin and that's not uniquely dangerous, really
LSD is extremely potent at small quantities (dozens of micrograms); exposure to even a small fraction of this (a few grams, say) could be enough to put someone into a non-responsive state for a few days. I don't think it'd cause permanent damage, but still not something to underestimate.
There are reports in medical journals of people accidentally taking hundreds of doses of LSD, and they all were sober within 24 hours.
This is a famous case from the 70s: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1129381/?page=1
Summary: 8 people at a party in SF “accidentally” (having mistook it for cocaine, as one does) snorted at least two lines each of powdered LSD. Somehow, they made it to the hospital 10 minutes later. 5 of them were in a coma by the time they were seen, and 3 had to be intubated. One person had a temperature of 107F + 200BPM pulse. One of the comatose patients discharged himself after 12 hours, and they all seemingly recovered fully. But without prompt medical care…probably not.
Conclusion: Do not snort a 1000x dose of LSD.
Summary: 8 people at a party in SF “accidentally” (having mistook it for cocaine, as one does) snorted at least two lines each of powdered LSD. Somehow, they made it to the hospital 10 minutes later. 5 of them were in a coma by the time they were seen, and 3 had to be intubated. One person had a temperature of 107F + 200BPM pulse. One of the comatose patients discharged himself after 12 hours, and they all seemingly recovered fully. But without prompt medical care…probably not.
Conclusion: Do not snort a 1000x dose of LSD.
I read the paper and I think there's another explanation. They say the seized material was "almost pure" LSD- 80 - 90%. But "almost pure" LSD is 99.9% or more. Seems more likely the material was contaminated with something else that caused the reaction.
In my experience, double the dose lasts the same amount of time, but the peak is more intense. It seems the brain just gets used to the sensation after a while.
I think "they all were sober within 24 hours" is too strong of a statement - LSD's half life is 3.6 hours, so after 24 hours blood concentration should be reduced to ~1/64th. Sober within 2-3 days is probably accurate, but I bet anyone who took a 100x dose doesn't feel "normal" for at least a couple weeks, perhaps months - more from PTSD-like effects from the intensity of the experience rather than acute LSD intoxication.
You're talking about the half-life of the molecule in the bloodstream, which is different from the half-life of the intensity of the effects. Serotonin receptors begin to downregulate as soon as the effects start, causing tolerance which lasts (to some extent) for several weeks. Taking a massive dose of LSD, or any other classical psychedelic for that matter, wouldn't significantly extend the trip. The brain just refuses to stay in that state for long.
Three case reports for LSD overdoses: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339234169_LSD_Overd...
LOL. Overdoses which cure people of their mental illness for 20 years:
"first case report documents significant improvements in mood symptoms, including reductions in mania with psychotic features, following an accidental lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) overdose, changes that have been sustained for almost 20 years."
"first case report documents significant improvements in mood symptoms, including reductions in mania with psychotic features, following an accidental lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) overdose, changes that have been sustained for almost 20 years."
Maybe lsd has changed since the 90s but 2 or 3 hits lasts longer than 24hrs. I don’t see how “hundreds” would be survivable. You would probably just die of exhaustion, there’s no sleeping on lsd and the harder you try fight it the worse it gets.
If 2 or 3 hits was lasting longer than 24h, there's a good chance it was something other than LSD (like DOM) or you have an idiosyncratic reaction.
I've met a couple people who took 100+ hits at once and survived to tell the tale. One fellow took what what was around 1000. The psychological aftershocks took him months to process, but at the time we met he was normal (well as normal as you'd expect from a person brave enough to intentionally ingest that much) and healthy.
I've met a couple people who took 100+ hits at once and survived to tell the tale. One fellow took what what was around 1000. The psychological aftershocks took him months to process, but at the time we met he was normal (well as normal as you'd expect from a person brave enough to intentionally ingest that much) and healthy.
To overshare, 2 or 3 hits wouldn't even hit me hard enough to stop me from doing Anki or reading, except for the relatively short time I'd be peaking. I could definitely sleep on it after the peak (but wouldn't at current prices.)
2-3 hits don’t last longer than 24 hours for the vast majority of people.
Likely you’ve been taking something else.
Likely you’ve been taking something else.
Nobody in this world, is taking "hundreds of doses" of LSD and sober within 24 hours.
That case report notes a 10x dose, a 5x dose (these are pretty standard), and a very loose description of snorting 55mg of powdered LSD, which I don't buy. I've seen enough folks eat a sheet or down a 10k mic vial and trip for a week+ to know better. Possibly the dose report was well off, or snorting it and fortunately they didn't get much of it or it wasn't pure LSD-25.
I'm used to him having a long wizard looking beard.
[deleted]
Psilocybin chocolates are a great way to consume the substance, but they are a bad f'n idea in my opinion. A lot of the people that get a hold of them are not always in a vigilant state, and one of these could easily get into the hands of a child. They just look like a normal chocolate.
It’s not really any different from cannabis though, right?
Unlike cannabis, you can’t smoke it, so ingestion is an obvious choice. I suppose pills could be an answer but kids eat pills all the time too. Granted, perhaps less enticing than chocolates but still a problem.
The better option would be to forgo purchase of these substances until you're ready to consume them. Legalization makes this a reality. I could go to the store, buy the drugs, then drive straight home and consume them in a safe environment.
The prohibition we have currently is what tempts people to stock up all at once and ultimately leads to higher risks for children finding/consuming them while mommy and daddy are at work.
Unlike cannabis, you can’t smoke it, so ingestion is an obvious choice. I suppose pills could be an answer but kids eat pills all the time too. Granted, perhaps less enticing than chocolates but still a problem.
The better option would be to forgo purchase of these substances until you're ready to consume them. Legalization makes this a reality. I could go to the store, buy the drugs, then drive straight home and consume them in a safe environment.
The prohibition we have currently is what tempts people to stock up all at once and ultimately leads to higher risks for children finding/consuming them while mommy and daddy are at work.
I'm not suggesting a prohibition of psilocybin whether in chocolate or not. I'm only saying that the delivery mechanism is a bit irresponsible, kinda like strawberry nicotine vapes. Should not be illegal though.
Those fancy looking craft beer cans certainly remind me of soda.
Psilocybin is quite different from cannabis!
Definitely, I meant that they were similar in regards to packaging, marketing, and distribution in our quasi-legal current system.
Very "but think of the children!" sort of argument against the countless things that should be kept away from children, including vitamins, medicine, cleaning products, and sharp objects. Yeah, thanks, keep the drugged candy away from kids. We know.
With cannabis, in states that legalized it in edible form, there are usually fairly stringent "child proof" packaging requirements such that it's not something you can just unwrap or tear.
> This is San Francisco we're talking about, psychedelics already weren't a priority for the police in any practical sense.
Whenever someone says something like that, you know they don't have much experience trying to get hold of illegal drugs! It's rarely easy, and often falls through.
Whenever someone says something like that, you know they don't have much experience trying to get hold of illegal drugs! It's rarely easy, and often falls through.
Two weeks ago I was picnicking with friends at Mission Dolores Park in San Francisco and multiple vendors came by with cute baskets full of weed and psychedelic mushrooms for sale. They even accept Venmo for payment. We weren’t looking, these people just wander around offering them to every group they walk past.
> Whenever someone says something like that, you know they don't have much experience trying to get hold of illegal drugs! It's rarely easy, and often falls through.
As this is a public record, I'm in total agreement with you. I have zero experience acquiring illegal drugs, none.
To not distinguish psychedelics from "illegal drugs" however, especially in the context of San Francisco, suggests to me you don't have much experience with the city.
As this is a public record, I'm in total agreement with you. I have zero experience acquiring illegal drugs, none.
To not distinguish psychedelics from "illegal drugs" however, especially in the context of San Francisco, suggests to me you don't have much experience with the city.
Same totally in agreement. I have never in my life acquired any illegal drugs. I have absolutely no idea if weed, molly and lsd are regularly advertised on WhatsApp here and wouldn’t considered the complexity as akin to ordering on Uber Eats.
This is San Francisco we're talking about... you just have to sit at Dolores Park and wait for the sellers to walk by....
Also, the chocolate brownies are pretty good and even sometimes have drug-free versions too!
Also, the chocolate brownies are pretty good and even sometimes have drug-free versions too!
Ahhh I was just at Dolores Park and I never thought to ask the vendors if they had regular brownies! Thanks for the tip.
Some day we'll look back and consider thc the least harmful part of the brownies, well except for cbd I suppose.
> openly selling commercial-looking individually wrapped chocolates containing psilocybin
https://mushroomoneupbars.com/
IDK, people cheaply deliver these politely, promptly and dependably to your door where I live, and I don't live in CA.
https://mushroomoneupbars.com/
IDK, people cheaply deliver these politely, promptly and dependably to your door where I live, and I don't live in CA.
Walk down Haight St and people practically stuff drugs into your pocket without even asking.
I think if you can get some cryptocurrency and have access to the internet using Tor, it is incredibly easy. In fact I'd say, DO NOT buy acid on the street.
If you live in the EU, you can even acquire a legit derivative legally on the 'clearnet'.
If you live in the EU, you can even acquire a legit derivative legally on the 'clearnet'.
Sure, but darknet markets have a different sort of risk. From what I understand they can still intercept it and charge you for it.
In the US, i think to intercept mail via USPS they must have a warrant, Then they send a postal inspector to deliver it. Don't accept packages of drugs from a postman hand delivering it, and you should be good?
In the USA, "they" can also let it be delivered and then raid your home, shoot your dogs, and hold you at gunpoint for hours.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwyn_Heights,_Maryland_mayor...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwyn_Heights,_Maryland_mayor...
Anyone can send something to your address without your consent or knowing, just as anyone can send you an email with something illegal.
What? You can get some at Dolores or just go to Zide Door. I go there quite often. Nicely labeled and packaged. Pretty consistent dosing.
Been doing this for years too. It ain't even new.
Been doing this for years too. It ain't even new.
You must live in a different bubble than OP (and me). When I was in the bay area this couldn't be further from the truth.
DC decriminalized psychedelics (well, entheogens like psilocybin) over a year ago: https://www.washingtonian.com/2021/03/15/magic-mushrooms-are...
December 2020: Oregon decriminalized all drugs:
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2020-12-10/...
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2020-12-10/...
I wouldn't say that this has been going well recently.
As someone who just came back from Portland with high expectations and instead stepped into a city where in downtown we were outnumbered by drug users, homeless, and other sketchy characters, I have to say you're right. We observed an ambulance trying to revive someone and another druggie crying in fear within the first half an hour of walking around.
The city is also covered in graffiti and full of shuttered, empty stores, it's almost apocalyptic. It's quite a sad state of affairs, and I say that as someone living in the Bay Area next to San Francisco and Oakland.
The city is also covered in graffiti and full of shuttered, empty stores, it's almost apocalyptic. It's quite a sad state of affairs, and I say that as someone living in the Bay Area next to San Francisco and Oakland.
It's true, but I don't think this has anything to do with decriminalization. Covid and the months of protests and Portland becoming a target for Proud Boys and the like, those are what destroyed downtown. (AFAIK, the rest of Oregon hasn't been hit in the same way at all. Even the rest of Portland is still pretty cool.)
I haven't followed. Why not?
Detroit and Ann Arbor in Michigan both decriminalized it:
November 2021:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/detroit-just-decrimina...
September 2020:
https://apnews.com/article/ann-arbor-plants-featured-ca-stat...
November 2021:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/detroit-just-decrimina...
September 2020:
https://apnews.com/article/ann-arbor-plants-featured-ca-stat...
Great news. Whether or not you believe these substances have significant therapeutic potential (I do), it's basically indisputable that they are socially harmless. Nobody gets addicted to them, there are no known negative health effects. There is absolutely no justification whatsoever for their criminality, and there never has been.
I agree there was no justification to their criminality but would like to caution against portraying them too widely as harmless. Specifically, psychadelics should be considered very carefully(and potentially not partaken in at all) in context of those who have experienced psychosis or are relatives of people with psychotic disorders.
This is a bit disingenuous.
I have known too many people with "psychotic disorders". I have learnt the hard way to show such people enormous respect. A person who cannt distinguish a real thing from a thought is somebody that can do very surprising things.
These can be wonderful things, great artists etcetera. But it can also mean unexpected violence.
Yes "psychadelics should be considered very carefully... in context of those who have experienced psychosis". Everything should in that context.
A cup of tea should be.
I have known too many people with "psychotic disorders". I have learnt the hard way to show such people enormous respect. A person who cannt distinguish a real thing from a thought is somebody that can do very surprising things.
These can be wonderful things, great artists etcetera. But it can also mean unexpected violence.
Yes "psychadelics should be considered very carefully... in context of those who have experienced psychosis". Everything should in that context.
A cup of tea should be.
I'm sorry for whatever happened to you that is causing you to behave as if someone who had experienced psychosis cannot live a full, functioning, well-managed life. Someone with a well-controlled schizophrenia spectrum/psychotic disorder/mood disorder with psychosis does not generally have to be careful about "everything". Someone who experiences psychosis due to insomnia, dehydration, or drugs generally does not pose a risk to themselves or others once the causal factor is removed. I understand your reaction may be coming from a place of trauma but please understand it is misinformed.
> I'm sorry for whatever happened to you that is causing you to behave as if
I know this is currently a popular snarky rhetorical maneuver, but it gives me the creeps every time. It’s pretty ugly.
I know this is currently a popular snarky rhetorical maneuver, but it gives me the creeps every time. It’s pretty ugly.
[deleted]
> you to behave as if someone who had experienced psychosis cannot live a full, functioning, well-managed life
It is true that it is possible to manage psychosis.
But it is also true that if you live with some one with psychosis you must respect the illness.
Denying that is dangerous. Unexpected violence is dangerous, and unexpected violence is a common symptom of psychosis.
It is true that it is possible to manage psychosis.
But it is also true that if you live with some one with psychosis you must respect the illness.
Denying that is dangerous. Unexpected violence is dangerous, and unexpected violence is a common symptom of psychosis.
People who experience psychosis are more likely to be the victims of violence than the perpetrators of it, and it is perfectly safe to live with someone who has a well-managed disorder with psychosis as part of its symptom profile. I understand this may not be your personal experience.
> I'm sorry for whatever happened to you that is causing you to behave
> I understand your reaction may be coming from a place of trauma
This is basically personally attacking someone on no evidence except their opinion, which happens to be different from yours.
I wonder what trauma you have experienced to behave like this. /s
> I understand your reaction may be coming from a place of trauma
This is basically personally attacking someone on no evidence except their opinion, which happens to be different from yours.
I wonder what trauma you have experienced to behave like this. /s
[deleted]
Please take my position in good faith, in response to someone who claims to have learned misinformation "the hard way".
If it is in good faith then let me respond (albeit quite late). I've also learned "the hard way" how to behave around people who experience psychosis by taking care of multiple friends at various points in time. Some people get violent, some don't. Those that don't generally will almost never get violent -- their brain seemingly just "doesn't have that pattern", so when their consciousness is starting to hit random buttons, it doesn't often come up as an option. People that do get physical (or heavily paranoid) have the potential to go violent, and that must be kept in mind for your own safety. It's obviously a lot more muddy than that but it's something to know.
I also know a nurse in a psychiatric clinic (the harder kind), he gets bit so much they have special vaccines (?, or some other kind of medication) to protect him against illnesses that can come from a human's mouth.
I don't believe the above reactions that I have learned are trauma, it's just the rational way to act when you've seen literal examples of what can happen.
I also know a nurse in a psychiatric clinic (the harder kind), he gets bit so much they have special vaccines (?, or some other kind of medication) to protect him against illnesses that can come from a human's mouth.
I don't believe the above reactions that I have learned are trauma, it's just the rational way to act when you've seen literal examples of what can happen.
While I am also in complete favour, stating that there are no negative health effects is somewhat false. Abusing any kind of psychedelic can lead to HPPD [1], a very real long term disorder.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinogen_persisting_percep...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinogen_persisting_percep...
I would classify HPPD as widely harmless. If you poll non-users you'll find that many people have HPPD like effects and can't recall ever not having them. Seeing a slight trail behind a bright fast moving object is inconsequential in life.
Brains are quite nonlinear. I wonder how many people already had visual artifacts and assorted weirdness, but never paid attention to them because the brain just paves over it, until an experience highlights those artifacts, and now they can't not notice them.
Many people with psychedelic-induced HPPD report them being a difficulty, though. Take this case study:
>These symptoms persisted for the last 13 years, with little change in intensity and frequency. All efforts at treatment, psychopharmacological as well as psychotherapeutic, failed to alleviate the symptoms. Often the patient was unable to focus properly with her eyes and tired rapidly while performing intense visual tasks – these deficiencies being detrimental to her studies and professional work as an architect. As a consequence, the patient became depressed with latent suicidal impulses. She also found it increasingly difficult to distinguish between ‘normal’ and ‘ abnormal’ perceptions.
This papering over of side effects that people insist on is why so many are so hesitant to legalize these drugs. It's doing no favor to the cause when so many refuse to acknowledge the danger that's inherit in some kinds of psychoactive drugs.
This papering over of side effects that people insist on is why so many are so hesitant to legalize these drugs. It's doing no favor to the cause when so many refuse to acknowledge the danger that's inherit in some kinds of psychoactive drugs.
There are a couple of things to keep in mind here:
1. The link between psychedelic use and persisting minor visual disturbances is reasonably well established.
2. The link between psychedelic use and serious, problematic visual disturbances or psychiatric issues is not well established at all, and modern evidence calls into question[1].
Even if we do take at face value the attributions of problematic HPPD to psychedelics (which we really shouldn't), the prevalence of this phenomenon is extremely low. So low that there isn't much in the way of empirical data to estimate its prevalence - just case reports. And case reports are a notoriously unreliable way to reason about etiology.
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.16968
1. The link between psychedelic use and persisting minor visual disturbances is reasonably well established.
2. The link between psychedelic use and serious, problematic visual disturbances or psychiatric issues is not well established at all, and modern evidence calls into question[1].
Even if we do take at face value the attributions of problematic HPPD to psychedelics (which we really shouldn't), the prevalence of this phenomenon is extremely low. So low that there isn't much in the way of empirical data to estimate its prevalence - just case reports. And case reports are a notoriously unreliable way to reason about etiology.
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.16968
>2. The link between psychedelic use and serious, problematic visual disturbances or psychiatric issues is not well established at all, and modern evidence calls into question[1].
You are misinterpreting this. This is saying there's no link between psychedelic use and increased cases of psychosis. That isn't the same as debilitating HPPD, or any depression/anxiety caused as a result. In fact in that same article he highlights this;
>But he has concerns about Krebs and Johansen’s overall conclusions, he says, because individual cases of adverse effects use can and do occur.
>For example, people may develop hallucinogen persisting perception disorder (HPPD), a ‘trip’ that never seems to end, involving incessant distortions in the visual field, shimmering lights and coloured dots. “I’ve seen a number of people with these symptoms following a psychedelic experience, and it can be a very serious condition,” says Grob.
You are misinterpreting this. This is saying there's no link between psychedelic use and increased cases of psychosis. That isn't the same as debilitating HPPD, or any depression/anxiety caused as a result. In fact in that same article he highlights this;
>But he has concerns about Krebs and Johansen’s overall conclusions, he says, because individual cases of adverse effects use can and do occur.
>For example, people may develop hallucinogen persisting perception disorder (HPPD), a ‘trip’ that never seems to end, involving incessant distortions in the visual field, shimmering lights and coloured dots. “I’ve seen a number of people with these symptoms following a psychedelic experience, and it can be a very serious condition,” says Grob.
>If you poll non-users you'll find that many people have HPPD like effects and can't recall ever not having them.
Yep
https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/11/lots-of-people-going-a...
Yep
https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/11/lots-of-people-going-a...
I have HPPD and it is kind of fun and not at all distressing or problematic for my life. Cool part of how my brain works.
It is all relative.
In the case of recreational drugs it is relative to alcohol.
So not "completely harmless" but "relatively harmless"
In the case of recreational drugs it is relative to alcohol.
So not "completely harmless" but "relatively harmless"
Many people have bad trips that end up in irreparable self harm or harm to others, often inducing death by police.
Psychedelics radically impact cognition and consciousness, and not always in a safe way.
It's not always just a 'woah man' giggling in a park.
People climb high things and fall. They run into traffic or harms way. They often attack first responders that are attempting to deescalate.
Thought loops are dangerous and psychotic breaks are an obvious possibility to anyone who has done these substances.
Psychedelics radically impact cognition and consciousness, and not always in a safe way.
It's not always just a 'woah man' giggling in a park.
People climb high things and fall. They run into traffic or harms way. They often attack first responders that are attempting to deescalate.
Thought loops are dangerous and psychotic breaks are an obvious possibility to anyone who has done these substances.
Yes, this can happen, but it is extremely rare. Advil probably has a higher death rate than psilocybin.
Tylenol is an even better choice: "Paracetamol poisoning is the foremost cause of acute liver failure in the Western world, and accounts for most drug overdoses in the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracetamol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracetamol
Acetaminophen/paracetamol falls in the weird zone of drugs that would never have gotten approved by the FDA for OTC use if they were discovered today.
worik(2)
"it's basically indisputable that they are socially harmless."
I wouldn't go that far. Any substance that alters perception, inhibition, etc has the potential for some social impact. For example, public drunkenness, DUI, liquor license etc were created because intoxicated people caused some sort of problem and laws were created around that. While these were created for alcohol, it's likely similar laws would be created for other substances.
I wouldn't go that far. Any substance that alters perception, inhibition, etc has the potential for some social impact. For example, public drunkenness, DUI, liquor license etc were created because intoxicated people caused some sort of problem and laws were created around that. While these were created for alcohol, it's likely similar laws would be created for other substances.
Did you just compare LSD intoxication with "public drunkenness"?
Not so much "chalk and cheese" but "feather and revolver"
Not so much "chalk and cheese" but "feather and revolver"
My state has no law against public drunkenness and there is no discernible difference here between other states I have lived in which had such a law. Honestly I think that was written as a religious feelzy.
I bet your state has a disorderly conduct or similar. The laws between states aren't vastly different on this sort of thing in most cases.
And that same law would apply to tripping people as it does to drunk people, so I don't understand what this is getting at.
"so I don't understand what this is getting at."
It's merely an illustration that the absolute language used to proclaim that there are no social issues related to them is not correct.
It's merely an illustration that the absolute language used to proclaim that there are no social issues related to them is not correct.
A drunk (or high) person is significantly more likely to engage in disorderly behavior like tripping people than a sober person.
In my state disorderly conduct requires mens rea of disturbing the peace. It's not something you can do accidentally. Compare that to public drunkenness in someplace like California, it's strict liability -- doesn't matter whether you meant to act drunk or not (in fact you can be held accountable for being "unable" to exercise care). They're extremely different laws.
What state is that? It's likely they have something similar. Almost all do. Many also consider that willful intoxication will satisfy mens rea.
Arizona. It's against the law here to pass a law against public intoxication:
>"No county, municipality or other political subdivision may adopt or enforce any local law, ordinance, resolution or rule having the force of law that includes being a common drunkard or being found in an intoxicated condition as one of the elements of the offense giving rise to criminal or civil penalty or sanctions..."
And in fact they specifically make it illegal to do the thing you suggest, and use other laws as a backdoor against public intox:
>"No county, municipality or other political subdivision may interpret or apply any law of general application to circumvent the provision of subsection A."
(This leaves ability to pass a law at state level, but state has no public drunk law)
https://www.azleg.gov/ars/36/02031.htm
>"No county, municipality or other political subdivision may adopt or enforce any local law, ordinance, resolution or rule having the force of law that includes being a common drunkard or being found in an intoxicated condition as one of the elements of the offense giving rise to criminal or civil penalty or sanctions..."
And in fact they specifically make it illegal to do the thing you suggest, and use other laws as a backdoor against public intox:
>"No county, municipality or other political subdivision may interpret or apply any law of general application to circumvent the provision of subsection A."
(This leaves ability to pass a law at state level, but state has no public drunk law)
https://www.azleg.gov/ars/36/02031.htm
They commonly use disorderly conduct against drunk people if they're making a disturbance. You also don't need to do it with the intent to disturb, but just with the knowledge that you are, which is easier to prove.
But my point still stands - there are social negatives that we pass laws around consumption of various drugs (including alcohol), and that they are very similar in most states (AZ might not have a public drunkeness law, but still has plenty about other stuff like DUI, public consumption, age limits, licensing, open container law, etc).
But my point still stands - there are social negatives that we pass laws around consumption of various drugs (including alcohol), and that they are very similar in most states (AZ might not have a public drunkeness law, but still has plenty about other stuff like DUI, public consumption, age limits, licensing, open container law, etc).
You're oversimplifying. "The law" is not the only thing that dictates peoples' behaviors. There are lots of other reasons why drinking may be more or less bothersome in some states versus others. Different places have different customs, particularly around drinking. Those customs combined with alcohol may create more or less of a public nuisance.
[deleted]
> socially harmless. Nobody gets addicted to them, there are no known negative health effects.
Not true.
My friend woke up handcuffed to a hospital bed after a bad trip on mushrooms. He saw his dead body in the street and was convinced he was dead and a ghost. He then went running around Manhattan traffic jumping on cars.
An English teacher in high school witnessed her friend jump to her death from a balcony after taking LSD. The woman said she felt light as a bird, took off running, hopped up a chair and dove over the railing to the pavement 20 feet below. She broke her neck.
I am not saying psychedelics should remain banned. But to casually call them harmless is incredibly irresponsible. They need to be taken under supervision by people with experience. This is called trip sitting. Not all trips are good as emotions and state of mind can effect the outcome. Things can go wrong fast. Be safe.
Not true.
My friend woke up handcuffed to a hospital bed after a bad trip on mushrooms. He saw his dead body in the street and was convinced he was dead and a ghost. He then went running around Manhattan traffic jumping on cars.
An English teacher in high school witnessed her friend jump to her death from a balcony after taking LSD. The woman said she felt light as a bird, took off running, hopped up a chair and dove over the railing to the pavement 20 feet below. She broke her neck.
I am not saying psychedelics should remain banned. But to casually call them harmless is incredibly irresponsible. They need to be taken under supervision by people with experience. This is called trip sitting. Not all trips are good as emotions and state of mind can effect the outcome. Things can go wrong fast. Be safe.
if you are worried about the harmful behavioral effects of psychedelics, consider that a significant fraction of all violent crimes involve alcohol:
* 15% of robberies
* 37% of sexual assaults
* 27% of aggravated assaults
* 60% of domestic violence (victim reported)
* 40% of child abusers (self reported)
* 40% of convicted murderers (self reported)
* 30% of traffic violence fatalities
https://www.alcoholrehabguide.org/alcohol/crimes/
psychedelics are essentially insignificant and are almost never involved in violence.
* 15% of robberies
* 37% of sexual assaults
* 27% of aggravated assaults
* 60% of domestic violence (victim reported)
* 40% of child abusers (self reported)
* 40% of convicted murderers (self reported)
* 30% of traffic violence fatalities
https://www.alcoholrehabguide.org/alcohol/crimes/
psychedelics are essentially insignificant and are almost never involved in violence.
Yes. And.
I often hear stories about people tripping on mushrooms getting upto mischief. When I did I always find that, along with the mushrooms, there was a bottle of whiskey, or equivalent.
My culture is awash with alcohol. It is hard to disentangle the dreadful effects of the alcohol overdose experience form the psychedelic experience after consuming a bottle of whiskey.
I often hear stories about people tripping on mushrooms getting upto mischief. When I did I always find that, along with the mushrooms, there was a bottle of whiskey, or equivalent.
My culture is awash with alcohol. It is hard to disentangle the dreadful effects of the alcohol overdose experience form the psychedelic experience after consuming a bottle of whiskey.
Sounds like both should be illegal then?
No, it means both should be legal and the behavior is what should be prosecuted, not the substance taken.
> An English teacher in high school witnessed her friend jump to her death from a balcony after taking LSD. The woman said she felt light as a bird, took off running, hopped up a chair and dove over the railing to the pavement 20 feet below. She broke her neck.
What behavior could be prosecuted here except for giving someone LSD without supervision?
What behavior could be prosecuted here except for giving someone LSD without supervision?
The trope of people jumping out of windows on LSD is entirely Art Linkletter's fault for not being able to accept his daughter's suicide, but instead blaming in on the fact that she had mentioned that she had done LSD before.
Since, if you're on LSD (or pretending to be) and acting out, the first thing you're expected to do is talk about how you can fly and threatening to jump out of the window. It's silly. No part of LSD makes upper-floor windows magnetic, and the trope has proved longer lasting than the memory of Art or Diane Linkletter.
edit: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-scarlet-linkletter/
> Diane’s death helped spread a widespread urban legend that lives on to this day, although it was around well before her fatal plunge. According to a popular story that warns young people about the dangers of drug use, “some girl” jumps from a window while on an acid trip because the drug fools her into thinking she can fly. The claims immediately made after Diane’s death that she had been on LSD, coupled with her method of suicide, seemed to some to fit this existing cautionary tale, and afterwards her demise was pointed to as an example of this legend’s coming true.
Since, if you're on LSD (or pretending to be) and acting out, the first thing you're expected to do is talk about how you can fly and threatening to jump out of the window. It's silly. No part of LSD makes upper-floor windows magnetic, and the trope has proved longer lasting than the memory of Art or Diane Linkletter.
edit: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/the-scarlet-linkletter/
> Diane’s death helped spread a widespread urban legend that lives on to this day, although it was around well before her fatal plunge. According to a popular story that warns young people about the dangers of drug use, “some girl” jumps from a window while on an acid trip because the drug fools her into thinking she can fly. The claims immediately made after Diane’s death that she had been on LSD, coupled with her method of suicide, seemed to some to fit this existing cautionary tale, and afterwards her demise was pointed to as an example of this legend’s coming true.
> No part of LSD makes upper-floor windows magnetic
Salvinorin-a on the other hand has (slightly?) more potential for this scenario. Users can experience what they call “salvia gravity,” a sensation of being pulled in some particular direction, which they follow with their body. I saw someone curl into and begin to lean against a 2nd-floor window screen. His friends kept him safe for the ~7 minutes the trip lasted. If he had been alone though, he could have fallen out.
I don’t know how common that effect is, and it’s quite different from the folklore of people thinking they can fly on acid. This is just a PSA for the few people who are interested in trying that particular drug.
Salvinorin-a on the other hand has (slightly?) more potential for this scenario. Users can experience what they call “salvia gravity,” a sensation of being pulled in some particular direction, which they follow with their body. I saw someone curl into and begin to lean against a 2nd-floor window screen. His friends kept him safe for the ~7 minutes the trip lasted. If he had been alone though, he could have fallen out.
I don’t know how common that effect is, and it’s quite different from the folklore of people thinking they can fly on acid. This is just a PSA for the few people who are interested in trying that particular drug.
Who do we prosecute when a motorcyclist crashes into a tree at 120 mph?
We should prosecute the US institute of traffic engineers since it’s literally in their model policy that streets must be designed so you can go fast enough to kill yourself, and the correct number of pedestrian deaths before considering any mitigations is significantly more than none.
So if you go faster than kill-yourself speed a missile gets fired and evaporates you? Or how are you supposed to make a street that doesn't allow you to go fast enough to kill yourself?
Make 'em wiggly and add stop signs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_calming
https://visionzeronetwork.org/about/what-is-vision-zero/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_calming
https://visionzeronetwork.org/about/what-is-vision-zero/
That seems like an odd argument for a substance that disconnects you from your actions.
I am worried about self harm.
in that case, consider that around a third of all suicides are actively drunk at the time, and people addicted to alcohol suffer as much as a 120x greater suicide risk
https://www.alcoholrehabguide.org/resources/dual-diagnosis/a...
and then consider the mortality and harm caused directly by consumption of alcohol, which is significant, and one of the statistically largest causes of death at 140,000 people killed per year
https://nccd.cdc.gov/DPH_ARDI/
and once again, the involvement of psychedelics with with suicide is extremely limited and rare. psychedelics are often self-reported as a source of long-term relief from suicidal feelings, after even a single experience.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8033757/
https://www.alcoholrehabguide.org/resources/dual-diagnosis/a...
and then consider the mortality and harm caused directly by consumption of alcohol, which is significant, and one of the statistically largest causes of death at 140,000 people killed per year
https://nccd.cdc.gov/DPH_ARDI/
and once again, the involvement of psychedelics with with suicide is extremely limited and rare. psychedelics are often self-reported as a source of long-term relief from suicidal feelings, after even a single experience.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8033757/
Are you worried about self-harm that psychedelics are able to prevent?
From my read of the scientific literature, most situations like the ones you describe are at least partially caused by underlying disorders that pre-existed (and manifested). And the second one you describe is a pretty common story to be told (same rumor at my college).
> From my read of the scientific literature, most situations like the ones you describe are at least partially caused by underlying disorders that pre-existed (and manifested).
Do you have a qualifying medical certificate and professionally diagnosed my friend? The answer is no. So don't try to down play a serious incident you have ZERO knowledge of.
> And the second one you describe is a pretty common story to be told (same rumor at my college).
When my teacher told us the story she was quite emotional and serious. It could be a well intentioned lie to discourage "drug use" but again, you have no way of knowing the truth so knock it off.
Do you have a qualifying medical certificate and professionally diagnosed my friend? The answer is no. So don't try to down play a serious incident you have ZERO knowledge of.
> And the second one you describe is a pretty common story to be told (same rumor at my college).
When my teacher told us the story she was quite emotional and serious. It could be a well intentioned lie to discourage "drug use" but again, you have no way of knowing the truth so knock it off.
Note that my text was written to not specifically say that you lied, or misinterpreted the situation. my point was "the average observation is not entirely consistent with your anecdote", and "if a person does a crazy thing on drugs, it may not have been the drugs that made them crazy"
(as for credentials- no, no actual medical credentials, but I do have a phd in biophysics [emphasis on drug discovery], and have worked in the field of medical biology for decades). More importantly, my goal is here to avoid the "reefer madness" effect by countering establishment propaganda and college rumors with my read of the scientific literature, and also to raise awareness that mental illness is common and that psychedelic drugs can be a precipitating condition that turns a maintained disease into an emergency.
Trip responsibly,
(as for credentials- no, no actual medical credentials, but I do have a phd in biophysics [emphasis on drug discovery], and have worked in the field of medical biology for decades). More importantly, my goal is here to avoid the "reefer madness" effect by countering establishment propaganda and college rumors with my read of the scientific literature, and also to raise awareness that mental illness is common and that psychedelic drugs can be a precipitating condition that turns a maintained disease into an emergency.
Trip responsibly,
> Do you have a qualifying medical certificate and professionally diagnosed my friend?
It's weird that you yourself don't require these kinds of qualifications to participate in this discussion. I guess you don't need them in order to disqualify people from disagreeing with you.
It's weird that you yourself don't require these kinds of qualifications to participate in this discussion. I guess you don't need them in order to disqualify people from disagreeing with you.
How are these two scenarios different in practice?
1. Someone has had a latent mental disorder since birth, which then manifested itself permanently upon taking psychedelics, and would have never manifested itself without them
2. Someone who originally had no mental disorders developed a permanent one from taking psychedelics
1. Someone has had a latent mental disorder since birth, which then manifested itself permanently upon taking psychedelics, and would have never manifested itself without them
2. Someone who originally had no mental disorders developed a permanent one from taking psychedelics
Just replace "psychedelics" with "*" because the general question is interesting, not psychedelics. People have just sort of gone along with the idea that psychedelics precipitate mental illness more than other drugs, or other life activities. There isn't really strong data for that with LSD.
Is that any less reason to think this isn’t a good idea? How many latent, otherwise-benign disorders might become manifest if people experiment with these drugs?
Or with alcohol, or with religion, or with watching movies about time travel.
Is there a Biff Tannen copycat crime spree I wasn’t aware of?
China has been concerned that time-travel movies cause people to lose their grip on reality.
An English teacher you say... you have a reference for that - or is that just an iteration/mutation of the original story? (Frank Olson)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Olson
Basically a chemist gets secretly drugged with a massive dose of LSD, then nine whole days later allegedly jumps out the window of a hotel... this was after he was declared a possible security risk...
So more than likely he was helped out that window.
If not that - it was probably the guilt: for being a part of MKUltra and the clandestine drugging of American citizens - he had a moral crisis, that much is certain.
I'm not saying your story isn't true... but I've been on the internet long enough to see how stories morph over time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Olson
Basically a chemist gets secretly drugged with a massive dose of LSD, then nine whole days later allegedly jumps out the window of a hotel... this was after he was declared a possible security risk...
So more than likely he was helped out that window.
If not that - it was probably the guilt: for being a part of MKUltra and the clandestine drugging of American citizens - he had a moral crisis, that much is certain.
I'm not saying your story isn't true... but I've been on the internet long enough to see how stories morph over time.
Psychedelics, especially in conjunction with SSRIs, can cause serotonin syndrome. They can cause visual disturbances that far outlast the trip: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinogen_persisting_percep.... They can trigger psychosis in certain people, i.e those with bipolar disorder.
Alcohol, especially in conjunction with acetaminophen or other OTC pain meds, can cause liver damage.
As long as alcohol is a legal substance to consume, it makes no sense to criminalize substances widely shown to have lower harm coefficients than it. There's tons of studies which mostly-objectively quantify harm/addiction caused by substances. The only drugs squarely as bad or worse than alcohol are tobacco products (also legal, contains many more psychoactives beyond nicotine), meth, crack cocaine (delivery route matters), cathinones, GHB, certain gaba-ergics, and most opioids.
Nicotine in isolation, ketamine, classical psychedelics, cannabis, MDMA, most of the Shulginoids (phenethylamines and tryptamines), all fall short of the harm caused by alcohol.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.5921...
As long as alcohol is a legal substance to consume, it makes no sense to criminalize substances widely shown to have lower harm coefficients than it. There's tons of studies which mostly-objectively quantify harm/addiction caused by substances. The only drugs squarely as bad or worse than alcohol are tobacco products (also legal, contains many more psychoactives beyond nicotine), meth, crack cocaine (delivery route matters), cathinones, GHB, certain gaba-ergics, and most opioids.
Nicotine in isolation, ketamine, classical psychedelics, cannabis, MDMA, most of the Shulginoids (phenethylamines and tryptamines), all fall short of the harm caused by alcohol.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.5921...
Sounds like an argument to ban alcohol...
Yeah well we kinda tried that, didn't end well :p. Banning cannabis was much easier due to its much smaller appeal at the time.
The three first principle components of a drug's harm are the therapeutic window (log ratio of LD50 to median active dose), addictivity (harder to quantify, but we have models based on pharmacokinetics and dynamics), and degree of harm to others when altered.
Alcohol is dangerously toxic on the order of ~15-25 units, has fast onset and hits GABA so rather addicting, and as a CNS depressant, is obviously very risky to others.
If a designer analog came out with the profile of EtOH, it'd immediately go to Sch I.
The three first principle components of a drug's harm are the therapeutic window (log ratio of LD50 to median active dose), addictivity (harder to quantify, but we have models based on pharmacokinetics and dynamics), and degree of harm to others when altered.
Alcohol is dangerously toxic on the order of ~15-25 units, has fast onset and hits GABA so rather addicting, and as a CNS depressant, is obviously very risky to others.
If a designer analog came out with the profile of EtOH, it'd immediately go to Sch I.
I have a friend who had HPPD for years and loved it! It's gone now and he misses it.
I agree with you, save for the negative health effects. It's very rare but sometimes it breaks people (firsthand witness to this way back when).
It still should be legal but we should be honest about risks.
It still should be legal but we should be honest about risks.
While most people harping on the "there are no known negative health effects." claim are talking about the drugs making people crazy I would point out that some psychedelics can also make people become sick. It passes, no long term harm, but it still seems like a miserable time and one I'd call a "negative health effect".
Sure, too much alcohol can cause people to get sick too, but then nobody ever said alcohol had "no known negative health effects" either.
Sure, too much alcohol can cause people to get sick too, but then nobody ever said alcohol had "no known negative health effects" either.
Remember when you compare the health effects, public health or private health, of LSD and alcohol, you are making a strong recommendation for LSD.
Certainly in terms of short-term judgement impairment, this isn't true:
https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/teendeathbridgefal...
https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/teendeathbridgefal...
Honestly I couldn't give a shit if there were horrible effects. Kidnapping someone off the street and throwing them in a padded room with a doctor over watching to make sure they're medically OK is perfectly safe, but ought to be illegal. Buying rat poison and eating it is completely unsafe, but if that's someone's thing then they're free to have at it.
Of course, if I buy rat poison, I have a pretty pure product and I can look up the ld50 and make a scientific estimate on how much I can take before I die. Not so with some random shit off the street.
Of course, if I buy rat poison, I have a pretty pure product and I can look up the ld50 and make a scientific estimate on how much I can take before I die. Not so with some random shit off the street.
> Of course, if I buy rat poison, I have a pretty pure product and I can look up the ld50 and make a scientific estimate on how much I can take before I die. Not so with some random shit off the street.
True.
Where I live (Aotearoa) drug testing has been made legal and there are many opportunities to take your stash along to the spectrometer (I am not a chemist, unsure about the actual nature of the instrument, except it is reliable) and get it tested.
True.
Where I live (Aotearoa) drug testing has been made legal and there are many opportunities to take your stash along to the spectrometer (I am not a chemist, unsure about the actual nature of the instrument, except it is reliable) and get it tested.
Most rodenticides, and a great many other hazardous household chemicals actually carry a warning that they are illegal to use in a way different than described in the instructions.
No, if you are susceptible to schizophrenia, it can trigger it and turn it into full blown schizophrenia including all the other comments about potential downsides.
But also reading comments on the Internet can trigger that stuff. The only safe thing is to ban online comment spaces.
HN is just low quality commentary on a lot of stuff and this is just another example. It's full of Internet urban legends and junk like that.
The classic sign of the Internet person who's trying to make himself seem like an authority on some subject is to try to use the trappings of expertise: speaking in passive voice, using words like "evidence" to describe urban legends, speaking in pseudo-formal tones to simulate expertise.
It's so clear that there is collectively very little expertise among this group on most subjects.
HN is just low quality commentary on a lot of stuff and this is just another example. It's full of Internet urban legends and junk like that.
The classic sign of the Internet person who's trying to make himself seem like an authority on some subject is to try to use the trappings of expertise: speaking in passive voice, using words like "evidence" to describe urban legends, speaking in pseudo-formal tones to simulate expertise.
It's so clear that there is collectively very little expertise among this group on most subjects.
yeah, it just happens most anyone with friends who do psychedelics have had some of them go on psychotic breaks that take months or years to fix. It's not super common but I'm gonna trust my own observations of reality over studies that usually fail to replicate
I'm sympathetic to the impulse, and I think it's a good one to be skeptical of things like that when they conflict with anecdotal evidence. However, I think you have to look at the context of the anecdata in this case to conclude that it's probably better to rely on empirical data.
The paper I linked even discusses this a bit - the problem is that psychedelics are an intense experience, and they have this reputation for causing psychosis (helped along by the drug war lies, naturally), and so people tend to attribute subsequent psychiatric issues to their psychedelic experience, inappropriately.
I'd ask you regarding your anecdata, do you actually know someone personally who you witnessed this happen to, or is it more like "a friend of a friend" had this happen, and told you about it? I've never personally known someone to whom this has happened, but like you, I've heard my fair share of tall tales from the gossip mill. It's just that, in this particular instance, I think it's pretty likely that the stories are just that - stories.
The paper I linked even discusses this a bit - the problem is that psychedelics are an intense experience, and they have this reputation for causing psychosis (helped along by the drug war lies, naturally), and so people tend to attribute subsequent psychiatric issues to their psychedelic experience, inappropriately.
I'd ask you regarding your anecdata, do you actually know someone personally who you witnessed this happen to, or is it more like "a friend of a friend" had this happen, and told you about it? I've never personally known someone to whom this has happened, but like you, I've heard my fair share of tall tales from the gossip mill. It's just that, in this particular instance, I think it's pretty likely that the stories are just that - stories.
I personally know 2 people who suffered from a bad trip. One who thought demons were out for them for about a month and another who just had some wild mood swings for a couple weeks afterwards. Both were temporary but the effects of a bad trip are no joke.
There's one other extreme example where someone I'm acquainted with did a lot of psychedelics over the course of a summer who seems permanently changed (although not ill or non-functioning in any way) but there's too much that could've happened outside the drug use that summer that could have affected him for me attribute those changes to drugs (although many other friends did).
There's one other extreme example where someone I'm acquainted with did a lot of psychedelics over the course of a summer who seems permanently changed (although not ill or non-functioning in any way) but there's too much that could've happened outside the drug use that summer that could have affected him for me attribute those changes to drugs (although many other friends did).
Yes, I know someone directly that had suicidal tendencies for months after a couple of years of binging on weed, some lsd precursor I'm forgetting and mushrooms. He's fine now thankfully but he went through hell.
"Years of binging on weed and 'some lsd precursor'" are not exactly the same thing as traditional plant based psychedelics. The only LSD precursor you could be referring to is Ergotamine (rye fungus), which is pretty well known to be toxic.
If you're talking about years of binging on mind altering substances, it's a virtual certainty that there were underlying psychiatric issues causing that. You can't simply conclude that because one thing came after the other, the drugs caused it, when we're talking about years of abuse.
If you're talking about years of binging on mind altering substances, it's a virtual certainty that there were underlying psychiatric issues causing that. You can't simply conclude that because one thing came after the other, the drugs caused it, when we're talking about years of abuse.
I've known him for 20 years, he didn't have any psychiatric issues at all before he started doing psychedelics often. He went deep into Terrance McKenna videos and had high ambitions to bend reality through his will and drug trips, this was fueled by magick videos and the like, got into crystals, all that crap. The "lsd" was ald-52.
> not super common but I'm gonna trust my own observations of reality over studies that usually fail to replicate
You mean you are going to prefer anecdotal evidence over scientific research?
The "studies that usually fail to replicate" are the ones supporting a LSD inducing schizophrenia.
Your "own observations of reality" are interesting to you, but do not form a basis for creating public policy
You mean you are going to prefer anecdotal evidence over scientific research?
The "studies that usually fail to replicate" are the ones supporting a LSD inducing schizophrenia.
Your "own observations of reality" are interesting to you, but do not form a basis for creating public policy
> You mean you are going to prefer anecdotal evidence over scientific research?
scientific research of this particular type has proved to be unreliable enough that it should be taken with a grain of salt. Fwiw my anecdote was probably caused by weed not LSD, my friend was taking frequent doses of a "legal" research LSD precursor he found in europe and didn't have problems until later when he stopped and smoked weed more. Idk if the LSD precursor accelerated his problems or not and I don't care to speculate.
> Your "own observations of reality" are interesting to you, but do not form a basis for creating public policy
I did not imply that psychedelics should be illegal, if it were up to me I'd legalize all drugs.
My issue is with people calling these chemicals "harmless", that very stance I believe is harmful. Any drug should be treated with respect. Weed is not harmless and the right edible or strong enough joint will fuck you up for days. People abuse MDMA regularly and come down with serotonin syndrome or fuck up their brain by not waiting 3 months or more. Ketamine is often abused too and that's not a fun ride either.
I've heard that SV types take LSD micro doses and I've tried it, I got a more cheerful day out of it but the next day I didn't have any motivation to do anything and didn't get much pleasure out of the whole day. So your mileage may vary, be careful when doing this stuff, do proper research and make sure you have enough free time with no responsibilities in the near future when doing them because you can't predict your specific reaction.
scientific research of this particular type has proved to be unreliable enough that it should be taken with a grain of salt. Fwiw my anecdote was probably caused by weed not LSD, my friend was taking frequent doses of a "legal" research LSD precursor he found in europe and didn't have problems until later when he stopped and smoked weed more. Idk if the LSD precursor accelerated his problems or not and I don't care to speculate.
> Your "own observations of reality" are interesting to you, but do not form a basis for creating public policy
I did not imply that psychedelics should be illegal, if it were up to me I'd legalize all drugs.
My issue is with people calling these chemicals "harmless", that very stance I believe is harmful. Any drug should be treated with respect. Weed is not harmless and the right edible or strong enough joint will fuck you up for days. People abuse MDMA regularly and come down with serotonin syndrome or fuck up their brain by not waiting 3 months or more. Ketamine is often abused too and that's not a fun ride either.
I've heard that SV types take LSD micro doses and I've tried it, I got a more cheerful day out of it but the next day I didn't have any motivation to do anything and didn't get much pleasure out of the whole day. So your mileage may vary, be careful when doing this stuff, do proper research and make sure you have enough free time with no responsibilities in the near future when doing them because you can't predict your specific reaction.
How many well recorded and observed anecdotes are required before it becomes recorded data worthy of being considered a replication of a poorly designed and unreplicated academic study? Do I just gotta format it in two columns like it's a high school newsletter and pray nobody reads the dozens of references I threw in there but never actually used beyond roughly associating my own thoughts with ones someone else already had?
>You mean you are going to prefer anecdotal evidence over scientific research?
Yes, if it has the potential to ruin my life and the life of people I care about, as it is plainly obvious to anyone who pays any attention at all to the world around them that these drugs are extremely harmful to a subset of the population.
Yes, if it has the potential to ruin my life and the life of people I care about, as it is plainly obvious to anyone who pays any attention at all to the world around them that these drugs are extremely harmful to a subset of the population.
> these drugs are extremely harmful to a subset of the population.
I pay attention.
Decades of observing.
Some negative effects (the paranoia induced by repeatedly taking magic mushrooms for instance).
I too have heard horror stories, I just have not witnessed them.
But then I prefer to pay attention to the scientific research by people like David Nutt
You do what you want based on your own prejudices and if you must your bigotry. But places like thos that influence public policy statements like:
"as it is plainly obvious to anyone who pays any attention at all to the world around" as an argument against scientific research simply does not belong here
I pay attention.
Decades of observing.
Some negative effects (the paranoia induced by repeatedly taking magic mushrooms for instance).
I too have heard horror stories, I just have not witnessed them.
But then I prefer to pay attention to the scientific research by people like David Nutt
You do what you want based on your own prejudices and if you must your bigotry. But places like thos that influence public policy statements like:
"as it is plainly obvious to anyone who pays any attention at all to the world around" as an argument against scientific research simply does not belong here
> most everyone
You have to know that you're having this discussion with people who have done psychedelics and have friends who have done psychedelics.
You have to know that you're having this discussion with people who have done psychedelics and have friends who have done psychedelics.
It might be that we underestimate the number of people who sometimes can go on psychotic breaks without the drugs, as it is a taboo topic and is often dealt with quietly by mental hospitals. Also lots of homeless have mental conditions. This will skew the stats somewhat.
The title of this study "No link found between psychedelics and psychosis" should really be that "the authors did not find links between psychedelics and psychosis using their survey method".
These survey methods come with huge uncertainty and lots of pitfalls. I would not be surprised if the result in the paper is not reproducible. In fact, "over half of psychology studies fail reproducibility test"[1]
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18248
These survey methods come with huge uncertainty and lots of pitfalls. I would not be surprised if the result in the paper is not reproducible. In fact, "over half of psychology studies fail reproducibility test"[1]
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.18248
Well, if you care about your mental health, you would visit a psychiatrist and a psychotherapist about any such suspicions prior to taking psychedelics, but it is obviously difficult to conceal your true intent from them if it is highly illegal, so decriminalization has the potential to reduce harmful side effects.
Or, like has happened with marijuana, decriminalization will increase the amount of people using it and therefore schizophrenia.
Just this past summer I had a friend tell me he was thinking of getting some mushrooms for us to all use at a party, like it was something you just casually do for fun like weed.
I have another friend with a serious family history of schizophrenia and he does pot and now psilocybin because they’re “natural and harmless.” I warned him, showed him literature, etc. There’s been far too much propaganda (?) on how safe those substances are for him to think they could ever cause harm.
And frankly, he’s always been a bit crazy but the past couple years…. Something has definitely changed in him. We’re talking things like believing he can heal people.
Just this past summer I had a friend tell me he was thinking of getting some mushrooms for us to all use at a party, like it was something you just casually do for fun like weed.
I have another friend with a serious family history of schizophrenia and he does pot and now psilocybin because they’re “natural and harmless.” I warned him, showed him literature, etc. There’s been far too much propaganda (?) on how safe those substances are for him to think they could ever cause harm.
And frankly, he’s always been a bit crazy but the past couple years…. Something has definitely changed in him. We’re talking things like believing he can heal people.
There is no evidence that psychedelics cause schizophrenia. There is very weak evidence that it may precipitate latent schizophrenia earlier than it otherwise would have manifested, but even that isn't very well established.
I don't know anybody who started using cannabis because it was decriminalized (I don't use it myself). Are you sure that's a significant demographic?
The only thing that has really changed is that we have fewer people in jail, we can know our doses in milligrams (instead of "hits" or whatever), and we can talk openly about our plans and get feedback from a wider audience re: whether they're good ones.
If psilocybin were legal, you friend would probably know better than to mess around with it if he has a family history of schizophrenia. As it is, he can only talk about it in small echo chambers, which is how harmful misinformation thrives.
The only thing that has really changed is that we have fewer people in jail, we can know our doses in milligrams (instead of "hits" or whatever), and we can talk openly about our plans and get feedback from a wider audience re: whether they're good ones.
If psilocybin were legal, you friend would probably know better than to mess around with it if he has a family history of schizophrenia. As it is, he can only talk about it in small echo chambers, which is how harmful misinformation thrives.
I know several people that went to Colorado for a wedding and they all took the opportunity to either try marijuana for the first time or the first time since high school.
"For the entire population twelve and older, Colorado’s marijuana use has increased starkly since legalization, rising 30 percent to become third in the nation, 76 percent above the national average. Among college-age youth (20–25), past-month use is 50 percent higher than the average, while past-month use for ages 12–17 is 43 percent higher."
https://www.hudson.org/research/17052-the-colorado-experimen... / https://www.thenmi.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/RMHIDTA-Ma...
I very much doubt your last point as I haven't seen the same thing happen with marijuana. Again, I told him myself. There's a good portion of the population that wouldn't conceive of taking a prescription medication unless absolutely necessary but think that several illicit drugs are somehow wonderdrugs that can cure all ailments.
"For the entire population twelve and older, Colorado’s marijuana use has increased starkly since legalization, rising 30 percent to become third in the nation, 76 percent above the national average. Among college-age youth (20–25), past-month use is 50 percent higher than the average, while past-month use for ages 12–17 is 43 percent higher."
https://www.hudson.org/research/17052-the-colorado-experimen... / https://www.thenmi.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/RMHIDTA-Ma...
I very much doubt your last point as I haven't seen the same thing happen with marijuana. Again, I told him myself. There's a good portion of the population that wouldn't conceive of taking a prescription medication unless absolutely necessary but think that several illicit drugs are somehow wonderdrugs that can cure all ailments.
Depending on the dosage, the user's reaction to it, and what kind you psychedelic you're taking, it's very possible for people to end up tripping so hard that they think they're fighting for they're life, but they're actually attacking random people in the street.
I'm curious to see how often these events happen as more areas decriminalize it.
I'm curious to see how often these events happen as more areas decriminalize it.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
In the long run, they could be dangerous to profit margins of defense contractors.
Society has figured out quiet quitting all on their own without the need of widespread psychedelics and capitalism has not ended because of it. There's definitely no need to hold back LSD now.
Quiet quitting is a new name for “lazy”. Not a new concept.
> it's basically indisputable that they are socially harmless
Considering that the place with the highest psychedelic drug use is also the place with the highest number of mentally ill and homeless, that seems a rather preposterous assertion.
Considering that the place with the highest psychedelic drug use is also the place with the highest number of mentally ill and homeless, that seems a rather preposterous assertion.
Yours is an excellent example of how correlative observational studies (however formal or informal) are practically useless. Once you have experience interacting with the unhoused population, you will quickly learn that they are largely using things like crack, meth, and opioids (if at all -- many are in fact sober), not psychedelics.
I don't find that surprising, but I'd still be interested to see a survey of what proportion of California's homeless population have used psychedelics extensively _in their past_. Because my experience leads me to believe that someone who does a lot of psychedelics in their younger years is more likely to wind up on a bad track later in life (even if they don't continue with those drugs later on).
Bayesian thinking can pay here, as well as a little self-critique.
Simply put, confirmation bias will convince you that people who do psychedelics end up on a bad track if your sample only includes people who are on bad tracks, rather than a sample composed of those who use psychedelics.
More probably (and this in my experience is definitely true) many more people use psychedelics than you might naively assume, and in fact probably the proportion of people who use psychedelics and end up on good tracks is way higher than that of those who use psychedelics and end up on bad tracks.
On a more meta-level, your searching and inquisition is still based on a more fundamental assumption, that homeless people are homeless for reasons stemming from their own decisions, rather than some confluence of bad events that leads one to ruin or another possible path to homelessness (e.g., they have mental health conditions which prevent integration into "normal" society without proper treatment, or that they simply want to be homeless and nomadic as a lifestyle choice). Empathy pays off here to temper un-credible assumptions and analyses.
Simply put, confirmation bias will convince you that people who do psychedelics end up on a bad track if your sample only includes people who are on bad tracks, rather than a sample composed of those who use psychedelics.
More probably (and this in my experience is definitely true) many more people use psychedelics than you might naively assume, and in fact probably the proportion of people who use psychedelics and end up on good tracks is way higher than that of those who use psychedelics and end up on bad tracks.
On a more meta-level, your searching and inquisition is still based on a more fundamental assumption, that homeless people are homeless for reasons stemming from their own decisions, rather than some confluence of bad events that leads one to ruin or another possible path to homelessness (e.g., they have mental health conditions which prevent integration into "normal" society without proper treatment, or that they simply want to be homeless and nomadic as a lifestyle choice). Empathy pays off here to temper un-credible assumptions and analyses.
> the proportion of people who use psychedelics and end up on good tracks is way higher than that of those who use psychedelics and end up on bad tracks
I'll agree with that, but the real question is whether people who use psychedelics more frequently end up on bad tracks than those who don't, which in my experience is definitely true.
> homeless people are homeless for reasons stemming from their own decisions
No, my bias is that many homeless are homeless because they live in a place that enables and even encourages actions that lead people to become homeless (psychedelics use being one example).
I'll agree with that, but the real question is whether people who use psychedelics more frequently end up on bad tracks than those who don't, which in my experience is definitely true.
> homeless people are homeless for reasons stemming from their own decisions
No, my bias is that many homeless are homeless because they live in a place that enables and even encourages actions that lead people to become homeless (psychedelics use being one example).
Psychedelic use in SF is not primarily among the homeless population. That population is using very different substances.
I wholeheartedly disagree, psychedelics can amplify mental illness and result in bizarre behavior. Decriminalizing psychedelics in a city with a large homeless drug infused population is asking for trouble.
Not sure it matters; it's not like the police enforce any laws when it comes to the homeless population here, except for when it's politically expedient to do so.
I think these "no enforcement" things are the worst. It always leaves people in a legal grey-area where they want to do something, and they are allowed to do it, but it's still technically illegal with all the baggage that goes along with that. In fact, it relieves pressure to legalize, since most people are now able to do what they like.
Take speeding laws (in the US): (almost) everybody breaks them since the limits are so low, which gives officers discretion to basically go out and just start ticketing anybody they like. Everyone is guilty, but we just don't enforce it against you, at least for today. Clearly (I hope), when a large number of people are breaking a law, and we all just accept this - then it's not a good law. But speed limits don't get repealed, because very few people are actually prosecuted, so the general public doesn't get mad enough about it. If speed limits were universally enforced, the public would get mad and the limits would be removed or raised within a week.
Take speeding laws (in the US): (almost) everybody breaks them since the limits are so low, which gives officers discretion to basically go out and just start ticketing anybody they like. Everyone is guilty, but we just don't enforce it against you, at least for today. Clearly (I hope), when a large number of people are breaking a law, and we all just accept this - then it's not a good law. But speed limits don't get repealed, because very few people are actually prosecuted, so the general public doesn't get mad enough about it. If speed limits were universally enforced, the public would get mad and the limits would be removed or raised within a week.
There is no gray area here.
San Francisco can make murder legal and refuse to arrest people for it. State and federal law enforcement will just step in.
The DEA still busts dispensaries and grow operations in California for example, it just isn't newsworthy.
San Francisco can make murder legal and refuse to arrest people for it. State and federal law enforcement will just step in.
The DEA still busts dispensaries and grow operations in California for example, it just isn't newsworthy.
It's a bit more complicated than that. When the state makes something legal and refuses to prosecute, it can do so because it possesses sufficient sovereignty for that under the commandeering doctrine. But the relationship between the state and its municipalities is not equivalent - the state has all the sovereignty while the municipalities only have such power that the state delegates to them, and that power can always be withdrawn (in the most extreme case, by de-chartering). Thus, the state can actually force San Francisco to remove this law, and compel its law enforcement agencies to enforce state law. It just chooses to not do so.
Fantastic news for the US and the scientific research of psychedelics as a treatment for depression and anxiety. Meanwhile, on the other side of the atlantic, it's a nightmare to get our politicians to even begin talking about cannabis (Sweden).
Decriminalization is different than legalization. It likely will not help any US or scientific research.
The FDA is in the process of certifying psilocybin for therapeutic purposes, research should begin within a year or two, but decriminalization in oakland has already led to high quality, precision-dosed, retail-available gelcaps and such. I'm hoping those products hop the bay and show up in SF head shops, soon.
Amen to that. Also, hope that this will pave the way for wider therapeutic use not just in SF, but across the US and other countries.
What conditions are they considering it for?
Reducing stigma helps research. It becomes easier to get institutional support, recruit study participants, collaborate with colleagues, obtain funding, etc.
It's still illegal at a federal and state level.
Just to clarify, Psychedelics yes. Marijuana though is legal at the state level in some form for about 75% of the USA
To clarify further: cannabis legalization and decriminalization varies a lot by jurisdiction, but has rapidly accelerated in recent years. Even “legalized” and “decriminalized” varies significantly. Some states and jurisdictions permit commercial sales and others permit only cultivation, possession and gift exchange. Washington is fairly odd in that it allows commercial sale but doesn’t allow cultivation without a (medical or industrial) license. North Carolina is odd in that it’s decriminalized but has no medical. It’s effectively a grey market in all states with commercial, because you can’t legally use any form of electronic payment (despite many industry efforts to circumvent the restriction).
This all routes back to the Cole memo issued by the Obama DOJ, which (correctly IMO) identified federal jurisdiction as limited to interstate commerce, and effectively issued guidance to states that the federal government won’t intervene if it determines that local governments are making a good faith effort to prevent product or sales from crossing state lines.
Full legalization is almost definitely inevitable, but these sorts of patchwork laws will persist until federal law changes. Increasingly it seems likely that several holdout states will remain so until that time and may remain so even after the fact.
This all routes back to the Cole memo issued by the Obama DOJ, which (correctly IMO) identified federal jurisdiction as limited to interstate commerce, and effectively issued guidance to states that the federal government won’t intervene if it determines that local governments are making a good faith effort to prevent product or sales from crossing state lines.
Full legalization is almost definitely inevitable, but these sorts of patchwork laws will persist until federal law changes. Increasingly it seems likely that several holdout states will remain so until that time and may remain so even after the fact.
Sweden needs healthy, sober and clearminded men and women.
A more accurate title: SF supervisors would like to decriminalize psychedelics
Considering how things went with the fence in 24th St. when Ronen actually tried to "criminalize" something (https://twitter.com/HillaryRonen/status/1537599919090847745) I would say psychedelics are already decriminalized in the city wether the board instructs SFPD about making them "the lowest possible priority" or not.
This is probably a "propaganda law" to appear progressive while actually not doing anything at all except wasting ink and breath.
This is probably a "propaganda law" to appear progressive while actually not doing anything at all except wasting ink and breath.
That whole station is such a cluster. Someone got murdered there a week ago or so.
There was some quote with her that her district "went to shit during her term" and she seemed confused as to who was responsible...
There was some quote with her that her district "went to shit during her term" and she seemed confused as to who was responsible...
lowest priority of law enforcement is a meaningful law, sure the police do not typically target individual users, but producers and distributors are at risk - and nobody can get individual amounts without producers and distributors doing their thing. this also allows people to come out of the shadows which tends to ensure the product and the purchasing experience are safer.
Prior to Prop 64, we had a lowest priority ordinance for cannabis and it was a useful tool in defending our medical dispensaries.
People also have a tendency to get charged with possession when arrested for other things, even a traffic warrant or case of mistaken identity.
Prior to Prop 64, we had a lowest priority ordinance for cannabis and it was a useful tool in defending our medical dispensaries.
People also have a tendency to get charged with possession when arrested for other things, even a traffic warrant or case of mistaken identity.
I'm not a SF resident and don't understand this at all, can someone explain what happened here?
There's a BART station at 24th and Mission streets where the aboveground plaza (where the escalator is to get down to the station) is just covered with un-permitted street vendors. Many of the vendors are selling stolen goods. Ronen pledged to clean that up.
Of course, it was all just staged; they swept away the vendors, finished their photo op, and after they left, the vendors all came back.
I think the grandparent's point is that if they can't/won't even enforce laws that they actually claim to enforce, LSD use -- something the local government explicitly has not cared about for quite some time -- has already been unofficially decriminalized. I don't really agree with the overall premise there, though; without getting into whether this particular decriminalization is a good idea, leaving intentionally-unenforced laws on the books just leads to abuse. If particular laws shouldn't be enforced, then they should be repealed entirely.
Of course, it was all just staged; they swept away the vendors, finished their photo op, and after they left, the vendors all came back.
I think the grandparent's point is that if they can't/won't even enforce laws that they actually claim to enforce, LSD use -- something the local government explicitly has not cared about for quite some time -- has already been unofficially decriminalized. I don't really agree with the overall premise there, though; without getting into whether this particular decriminalization is a good idea, leaving intentionally-unenforced laws on the books just leads to abuse. If particular laws shouldn't be enforced, then they should be repealed entirely.
I think they’re saying that pshychedelics laws are already entirely not enforced so this does nothing.
Here is the resolution they adopted: https://sfgov.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=5742708...
https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=11095427&GUID=46...
I think it is useful because it provides a fairly compelling and surprisingly specific list of justifications.
https://sfgov.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=11095427&GUID=46...
I think it is useful because it provides a fairly compelling and surprisingly specific list of justifications.
Surprised Ketamine isn't listed. I figured they'd lump that in. On the other hand, ketamine is extremely addictive, despite what you might read online. I know several people who have given up everything to sustain their Ketamine habit.
It also has bladder toxicity issues, it's not uncommon for ketamine addicts to piss blood AIUI. In extreme cases bladders have required permanent removal.
Edit: VICE even named their recent Ketamine episode "Pissing Blood" for this reason. [0]
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99XQY7Elwhc
Edit: VICE even named their recent Ketamine episode "Pissing Blood" for this reason. [0]
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99XQY7Elwhc
>... it's not uncommon for ketamine addicts to piss blood AIUI.
I had no idea this was a thing until the morning after I woke up from my first time partying around people who were using it. Someone took a leak and I hear, "Hah! Yep, there's the good ol' orange K piss," and I couldn't help but be surprised that it sounded like they were laughing at the fact they were pissing blood.
I should clarify - nothing against ketamine in small doses recreationally, just take care of yourself.
I had no idea this was a thing until the morning after I woke up from my first time partying around people who were using it. Someone took a leak and I hear, "Hah! Yep, there's the good ol' orange K piss," and I couldn't help but be surprised that it sounded like they were laughing at the fact they were pissing blood.
I should clarify - nothing against ketamine in small doses recreationally, just take care of yourself.
ketamine also has been shown to cause brain damage in addicts afaik.
> ketamine also has been shown to cause brain damage in addicts afaik.
I have to call you on that.
Very irresponsible to say things like that with out context.
Like: Where does that factoid come from? Compare it to other known neuro toxins - alcohol obviously.
I have to call you on that.
Very irresponsible to say things like that with out context.
Like: Where does that factoid come from? Compare it to other known neuro toxins - alcohol obviously.
Not trying to defend or back up the person you're replying to, but a cursory Google for "ketamine brain damage" puts this as result numero uno...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3713393/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3713393/
"Brain damages in ketamine addicts as revealed by magnetic resonance imaging"
No. I will not take that seriously. "magnetic resonance imaging" of brains has very little value (not none) yet. I would pay attention to behavioural studies.
I hate ketamine. I hate its effects on me, and I really hate its effects on my friends. Makes them blithering boring idiots. I would not be devastated if there were serious health effects of moderate ketamine use (as there are for alcohol)
But this is bullshit anti drug propaganda. Just because the drug it is attacking is IMO a horrible drug, does not make it better
No. I will not take that seriously. "magnetic resonance imaging" of brains has very little value (not none) yet. I would pay attention to behavioural studies.
I hate ketamine. I hate its effects on me, and I really hate its effects on my friends. Makes them blithering boring idiots. I would not be devastated if there were serious health effects of moderate ketamine use (as there are for alcohol)
But this is bullshit anti drug propaganda. Just because the drug it is attacking is IMO a horrible drug, does not make it better
Ok then.
Not uncommon for addicts, but quite uncommon for users.
You have to use high doses extremely regularly for this to happen. The vast majority of users do not use it at high enough dosage or frequency to get anywhere near this.
You have to use high doses extremely regularly for this to happen. The vast majority of users do not use it at high enough dosage or frequency to get anywhere near this.
"Extremely addictive" is a bit of a misnomer I believe, in terms of both the scientific literature and also much consensus around treatment-focused communities. Please stop spreading this.
What I can say is a similar thing, that it can cause _dependence_ very rapidly. It can be extraordinarily useful for healing certain mental health conditions, but tolerance builds rapidly, and people on the street are often trying to K-hole repeatedly, a basically pointless exercise. Sustained low-dosage usage seems to have fewer bladder effects, the tolerance combined with people using it as an escape (and preferring K-holes), as well as people who are already mentally broken having a nice lever to pull, is what can cause it to get out of hand.
This is not everybody, however. I think it depends upon the circles, and I think it is hard to see people do that regardless of the world. But your circles around you are also not the world at large. Please stay factually rooted in what you're sharing online. To me, substances that would be dangerous would be directly opioidergic or dopaminergic substances (opioids, nicotine, opioidergic hallucinogens) as opposed to one that is opioid _sensitizing_, like Ketamine (which lets it be a kind of opioid replacement for pain relief clinics, for example. Even infusions are helpful.)
It really is important that we all don't take our personal experiences to say "don't listen to what you hear online" too strongly, I guess even myself included here. Hope that helps shine an alternative perspective on the matter.
What I can say is a similar thing, that it can cause _dependence_ very rapidly. It can be extraordinarily useful for healing certain mental health conditions, but tolerance builds rapidly, and people on the street are often trying to K-hole repeatedly, a basically pointless exercise. Sustained low-dosage usage seems to have fewer bladder effects, the tolerance combined with people using it as an escape (and preferring K-holes), as well as people who are already mentally broken having a nice lever to pull, is what can cause it to get out of hand.
This is not everybody, however. I think it depends upon the circles, and I think it is hard to see people do that regardless of the world. But your circles around you are also not the world at large. Please stay factually rooted in what you're sharing online. To me, substances that would be dangerous would be directly opioidergic or dopaminergic substances (opioids, nicotine, opioidergic hallucinogens) as opposed to one that is opioid _sensitizing_, like Ketamine (which lets it be a kind of opioid replacement for pain relief clinics, for example. Even infusions are helpful.)
It really is important that we all don't take our personal experiences to say "don't listen to what you hear online" too strongly, I guess even myself included here. Hope that helps shine an alternative perspective on the matter.
What's the difference between "extremely addictive" and "can cause _dependence_ very rapidly"? Don't they mean the same thing?
Ketamine, is foremost a NDMA antagonist (Ki=0.25uM ), sure it act on some type of opioid receptor also as an antagonist (a blocker) (Ki=12uM at KOR2), but this effect is 50x less important. Other NMDA antagonist like PCP that don't act on the opiate receptors are as strong if not stronger at pain suppression.
Ketamine is also a direct dopamine agonist (Ki=0.5uM at D2).
Ketamine is also a direct dopamine agonist (Ki=0.5uM at D2).
It is indeed a D2 agonist and NMDA antagonist (I forget which site). I think D2 gets much maligned due to the potential induction of psychotomimetic effects at this receptor but remember too that if one subscribes to the D2-activation autoregulation hypothesis of why amphetamines work in ADHD then having a direct agonist available could be a very good thing.
The opioidergic effects are indirect by re-sensitization (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3856727/) which is why it is used by pain clinics and possibly might contribute to antidepressant effects.
One potential theory hanging about is that if appears to indirectly agonize AMPA through blocking NMDA, and this is what leads to mTOR and then eventually BDNF modulation. However, if activating AMPA is the main goal to getting Ketamine's antidepressant effects, one could just simply take a racetam and be done with it. Racetams seem to be helpful but not drastic like Ketamine here is, which likely I think is because of some concert of fortuitous effects unique to Ketamine itself.
There are other offshoots, like how some metabolites of Ketamine affect how Ketamine is processed, leading to potentially incredibly complex cascades of metabolite interactions in the brain. But this is even more in the weeds and I've rambled enough.
In any case, something special is going on with Ketamine. Otherwise people could just take massive amounts of Agmatine (and L-Lysine along with it for the wise, mouth sores are not desirable) and be done with it. Interestingly, this seems to work for some, but it seems like more than the NMDA is what is necessary (for a side thread: see sarcosine, some of the related methylation supply issues, and how it's an NMDA _agonist_ at the glycine site but still has rapid antidepressant effects. Very strange, this whole business).
I love this topic so I get verbal on it, hope it was an enjoyable ride. :) :thumbsup:
The opioidergic effects are indirect by re-sensitization (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3856727/) which is why it is used by pain clinics and possibly might contribute to antidepressant effects.
One potential theory hanging about is that if appears to indirectly agonize AMPA through blocking NMDA, and this is what leads to mTOR and then eventually BDNF modulation. However, if activating AMPA is the main goal to getting Ketamine's antidepressant effects, one could just simply take a racetam and be done with it. Racetams seem to be helpful but not drastic like Ketamine here is, which likely I think is because of some concert of fortuitous effects unique to Ketamine itself.
There are other offshoots, like how some metabolites of Ketamine affect how Ketamine is processed, leading to potentially incredibly complex cascades of metabolite interactions in the brain. But this is even more in the weeds and I've rambled enough.
In any case, something special is going on with Ketamine. Otherwise people could just take massive amounts of Agmatine (and L-Lysine along with it for the wise, mouth sores are not desirable) and be done with it. Interestingly, this seems to work for some, but it seems like more than the NMDA is what is necessary (for a side thread: see sarcosine, some of the related methylation supply issues, and how it's an NMDA _agonist_ at the glycine site but still has rapid antidepressant effects. Very strange, this whole business).
I love this topic so I get verbal on it, hope it was an enjoyable ride. :) :thumbsup:
Thanks for that link, I didn't knew about the opiate receptors resensitization.
I suspected, from personal experience with various NMDA antagonist that it's blockade has a similar effect on the dopamine¹ and nicotine/acetylcholine² families of receptors (but not on GABA³ nor CB⁴).
1- A few days after a dose of whatever the NMDA antagonist I currently had my ADD drug felt magical like the first month I took them.
2- As a teen I use to smoke... But I never smoked a cigarette again after trying to smoke during a DXM ( like ketamine, it's a substance with a really funky pharmacological profile ) trip. Every puff felt like it was my first puff but worse.
3- I take 1.5mg of clonazepam a night since I was 18 (I am over 40 now) and they had no effect whatsoever on my sensitivity nor my dependance. Clonazepam dependance is insidiously strong... it was prescribed for anxiety and insomnia, I never abused it, yet I cannot stop, each time I tried my attempt ended a few days later as I started to see scary bugs on the wall.
4- I used to be a pothead and while the combo is quite enjoyable they did nothing on my tolerance to cannabis.
p.s. Nowadays I read about drugs and I have as much fun as I did when I did use them... so I understand your enthusiasm, neuropsychopharmacology is fascinating.
p.p.s. If you didn't read this book https://archive.org/details/stahlsessentialp00stah I strongly recommend it !
I suspected, from personal experience with various NMDA antagonist that it's blockade has a similar effect on the dopamine¹ and nicotine/acetylcholine² families of receptors (but not on GABA³ nor CB⁴).
1- A few days after a dose of whatever the NMDA antagonist I currently had my ADD drug felt magical like the first month I took them.
2- As a teen I use to smoke... But I never smoked a cigarette again after trying to smoke during a DXM ( like ketamine, it's a substance with a really funky pharmacological profile ) trip. Every puff felt like it was my first puff but worse.
3- I take 1.5mg of clonazepam a night since I was 18 (I am over 40 now) and they had no effect whatsoever on my sensitivity nor my dependance. Clonazepam dependance is insidiously strong... it was prescribed for anxiety and insomnia, I never abused it, yet I cannot stop, each time I tried my attempt ended a few days later as I started to see scary bugs on the wall.
4- I used to be a pothead and while the combo is quite enjoyable they did nothing on my tolerance to cannabis.
p.s. Nowadays I read about drugs and I have as much fun as I did when I did use them... so I understand your enthusiasm, neuropsychopharmacology is fascinating.
p.p.s. If you didn't read this book https://archive.org/details/stahlsessentialp00stah I strongly recommend it !
I don't think it makes a lot of sense calling Ketamine a psychedelic. It is very much unlike any known psychedelic, and acts in a very different way in the body as well.
This resolution mentions SB 519, a state bill, and looks to be matching it. SB 519 had ketamine but dropped it since it was more contentious than other drugs.
> will be "among the lowest priorities" for law enforcement.
By that standard, both San Francisco and Los Angeles have decriminalized all drugs, alongside open containers, prostitution on the street, prostitution in strip clubs, prostitution elsewhere indoors, and practically every other vice.
And I'm reaaallly not saying this from a position of envy or disdain, only accuracy, there is also a completely parallel society for people living in tents where enforcement of anything is a stated non-priority.
Seeing an article about a board actually voting on a measure to "lower law enforcement priority" is kind of redundant! The Mayors and DA's have already dug their heels in, what does anything like this actually change? Does it force county/city judges to auto-drop cases if an officer and prosecutor fail to do so themselves?
Seems redundant if it can't actually do anything differently.
By that standard, both San Francisco and Los Angeles have decriminalized all drugs, alongside open containers, prostitution on the street, prostitution in strip clubs, prostitution elsewhere indoors, and practically every other vice.
And I'm reaaallly not saying this from a position of envy or disdain, only accuracy, there is also a completely parallel society for people living in tents where enforcement of anything is a stated non-priority.
Seeing an article about a board actually voting on a measure to "lower law enforcement priority" is kind of redundant! The Mayors and DA's have already dug their heels in, what does anything like this actually change? Does it force county/city judges to auto-drop cases if an officer and prosecutor fail to do so themselves?
Seems redundant if it can't actually do anything differently.
> there is also a completely parallel society for people living in tents where enforcement of anything is a stated non-priority.
Also where health or safety isn't anyone's responsibility. I guess we find it innately distasteful to make real demands of people that we do as little for as we possibly can. Most of us think that it's dangerously charitable not to imprison them and burn their things.
Also where health or safety isn't anyone's responsibility. I guess we find it innately distasteful to make real demands of people that we do as little for as we possibly can. Most of us think that it's dangerously charitable not to imprison them and burn their things.
Homeless have no money to extract. A middle class guy open carrying a protective weapon will get hit by the judicial system like a ton of bricks, while the homeless guy selling fent or acid or whatever on the corner will probably just get a tip on the next feeding time at the kitchen.
Hell SF pays homeless cash, simply for being homeless. Walk around SF on homeless payday and you’ll see a massive uptick in open use of crack, folks strung out motionless on the sidewalk with needles sticking out of them, and sidewalk slouchers openly sapping on liquor bottles. This is the same city that can’t manage to secure funding to prevent human waste from accumulating on the sidewalks.
I happen to be homeless as well, but I still can’t get behind this concept. I volunteer my time to a national wildlife refuge and expect nothing in return, these folks shit on sidewalks and get cash in hand. If we really want to “solve” homelessness (I don’t think it’s something that needs to be solved, every era of humanity has had some portion of the population living without a solid roof over their heads), the answer is funding more public works programs, not funding delinquency.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10498607/San-Franci...
I happen to be homeless as well, but I still can’t get behind this concept. I volunteer my time to a national wildlife refuge and expect nothing in return, these folks shit on sidewalks and get cash in hand. If we really want to “solve” homelessness (I don’t think it’s something that needs to be solved, every era of humanity has had some portion of the population living without a solid roof over their heads), the answer is funding more public works programs, not funding delinquency.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10498607/San-Franci...
“I don’t think it’s something that needs to be solved”
Yeah it is something that needs to be solved. I simply dont agree that society should sit idle while people are out there in the cold. Sure some do it by choice and you cant do much to help them. But a healthy society should have the mechanisms to house every person. I am not a socialist or whatever but i strongly believe that basics such as housing and health care should be taken care of on behalf of those who cant do it on their own. How can people call themselves “patriots” or say they love their country yet they dont help their fellow citizens. A country is not made of trees and rocks its made people. Loving it means loving the people as well.
Yeah it is something that needs to be solved. I simply dont agree that society should sit idle while people are out there in the cold. Sure some do it by choice and you cant do much to help them. But a healthy society should have the mechanisms to house every person. I am not a socialist or whatever but i strongly believe that basics such as housing and health care should be taken care of on behalf of those who cant do it on their own. How can people call themselves “patriots” or say they love their country yet they dont help their fellow citizens. A country is not made of trees and rocks its made people. Loving it means loving the people as well.
> I simply dont agree that society should sit idle while people are out there in the cold.
SF and coastal west coast cities don't get cold enough.
That's a major contributing factor to why there is a density of people living on the street. I would say that temperature argument point is invalid.
> But a healthy society should have the mechanisms to house every person.
There is plenty of land for housing nearby and elsewhere.
>
I'm not advocating for anything, I'm actually hoping that you can solidify your arguments better as you maintain your primary sentiment of wanting people to not be on the streets, that matches the sentiment of the people you think you're against, but you're wanting to address it with love and compassion.
SF and coastal west coast cities don't get cold enough.
That's a major contributing factor to why there is a density of people living on the street. I would say that temperature argument point is invalid.
> But a healthy society should have the mechanisms to house every person.
There is plenty of land for housing nearby and elsewhere.
>
I'm not advocating for anything, I'm actually hoping that you can solidify your arguments better as you maintain your primary sentiment of wanting people to not be on the streets, that matches the sentiment of the people you think you're against, but you're wanting to address it with love and compassion.
I think you're taking the grandparent's "out in the cold" line too literally. "Out in the elements" is probably a better descriptor; it's not about temperature, it's about all the disadvantages to health and safety that come with being homeless.
I don't think it makes a difference in my hope they can iterate towards stronger arguments that lead to consensus solutions, cleaning up the streets and also improving their physical and mental health, and ideally financial position too.
Their weaker arguments don't factor in anything. It doesn't factor in why people go to those specific areas. It doesn't factor in how the people on the street are only the visible homeless population and just the tip of the iceberg of the larger unhoused population in the same circumstance. It doesn't factor in how much of that visible homeless population is not interested in going to a different living arrangement, and so much more. Its just a rudimentary compassion argument that assumes well off and influential people aren't doing anything and that massively funded programs don't already exist. The statement about "the cold" doesn't seem to be targeted to any specific place either, despite this conversation being about San Francisco where "the elements" are more important, since a sweater and blanket is good enough for the worst of San Francisco weather. If their sentiment is so strong, they can iterate towards stronger arguments.
Their weaker arguments don't factor in anything. It doesn't factor in why people go to those specific areas. It doesn't factor in how the people on the street are only the visible homeless population and just the tip of the iceberg of the larger unhoused population in the same circumstance. It doesn't factor in how much of that visible homeless population is not interested in going to a different living arrangement, and so much more. Its just a rudimentary compassion argument that assumes well off and influential people aren't doing anything and that massively funded programs don't already exist. The statement about "the cold" doesn't seem to be targeted to any specific place either, despite this conversation being about San Francisco where "the elements" are more important, since a sweater and blanket is good enough for the worst of San Francisco weather. If their sentiment is so strong, they can iterate towards stronger arguments.
I dont need to iterate towards stronger arguments. There isn't much else to debate or elaborate on the issue. Indeed you are taking the out in the cold statement too literarily, my comment is not weather related. We as a society, regardless of country or city, need to look after each other to a certain extent. Thats what makes a society. We are not beasts. Competing in boardrooms, politics, businesses, or careers is welcome and healthy, but simply allowing for people to struggle at that level is not. It’s not even about wealth or class, let alone rudimentary compassion. It’s just something i feel. An automated reaction to such societal issues, and a response i can give as a tax pair, voter and very very small donor. Somewhere somehow a circuit is broken and people end up in that situation. We need the mechanisms to prevent that from happening. Sure if some people see homelessness as a positive choice they themselves make then thats their choice and i totally respect that. I am not writing this comment to patronise people, i know nothing of their lives. But i do know that we must do all we can to develop mechanisms to prevent it from happening to those who dont want it. Food, shelter and health care are basic human needs and rights.
>Food, shelter and health care are basic human needs and rights.
Even if so, it's not your right to take these by force. So if someone has to pay for that via taxes, etc then you are infringing on the rights of others in extracting that value. I would argue the government does have the obligation to not infringe on those rights, as they currently do in onerous regulation that makes these things unaffordable (well crappy food is pretty affordable by world standards). Obviously health care regulations and licensing, medicare, medicaid, medi-Cal, are some of the biggest offenders in destroying our rights.
Even if so, it's not your right to take these by force. So if someone has to pay for that via taxes, etc then you are infringing on the rights of others in extracting that value. I would argue the government does have the obligation to not infringe on those rights, as they currently do in onerous regulation that makes these things unaffordable (well crappy food is pretty affordable by world standards). Obviously health care regulations and licensing, medicare, medicaid, medi-Cal, are some of the biggest offenders in destroying our rights.
What's your standard on rights? The constitution has the 16th amendment in it which means any tax when called income tax is okay, and the original constitution's articles allows for excise taxes. So this is an area you have to remain vigilant on to prevent the political will from gaining consensus if it matters to you. Centrists are playing this role swimmingly, preventing any party from gaining any useful power, while the rest of the country actually believes the "wave" of their color is actually going to happen for like almost a decade now.
50-50 Senate since forever tells you all you need to know! No party is going to overcome the filibuster to pass anything.
50-50 Senate since forever tells you all you need to know! No party is going to overcome the filibuster to pass anything.
They're living on the street because there isn't enough housing so it costs too much. No other factors correlate with it, including poverty or drug use.
just out of curiosity, how did you become homeless? (judging from your profile you seem employable)
Personal preference, more or less. I worked in tech long enough to both save up a bit of a nest egg and realize I don’t want to spend my life sitting at a computer screen while the government takes a third of my paycheck to do lord knows what with, the landlord takes another third for the enormously helpful service they provide of “using accumulated wealth to buy up investment properties”, and the rest goes to the local bars (I jest… slightly).
That said, “homeless” is a loaded term that likely doesn’t accurately connote my living situation. I live in a tent on an wildlife refuge. I am a full-time volunteer on that refuge with the US Fish and Wildlife service. The general public may camp at the site free of charge, but my position grants me access to laundry, showers, and internet at the headquarters, which is located a few miles away from my campsite (no services or cellular connection there).
About half my traditional “working time” is spent doing odd jobs around the refuge for the benefit of its wildlife, staff, and visitors. I am provided a government truck and gas for official business, as much of the time I’m off-roading around from task to task. The other half of the time I work on personal projects, bike, hike, read, relax, meet people, etc.
In general I derive more satisfaction from helping animals-at-large as compared to humans, but the animals unfortunately pay quite a bit less. I would like to some day have an official compensated position using my education/professional experience to help wildlife more than my current position allows, but I have not yet heard back from the applications I submitted to that end. I am hoping connections I develop here will help me pursue that goal more effectively.
Hope that helps explain!
That said, “homeless” is a loaded term that likely doesn’t accurately connote my living situation. I live in a tent on an wildlife refuge. I am a full-time volunteer on that refuge with the US Fish and Wildlife service. The general public may camp at the site free of charge, but my position grants me access to laundry, showers, and internet at the headquarters, which is located a few miles away from my campsite (no services or cellular connection there).
About half my traditional “working time” is spent doing odd jobs around the refuge for the benefit of its wildlife, staff, and visitors. I am provided a government truck and gas for official business, as much of the time I’m off-roading around from task to task. The other half of the time I work on personal projects, bike, hike, read, relax, meet people, etc.
In general I derive more satisfaction from helping animals-at-large as compared to humans, but the animals unfortunately pay quite a bit less. I would like to some day have an official compensated position using my education/professional experience to help wildlife more than my current position allows, but I have not yet heard back from the applications I submitted to that end. I am hoping connections I develop here will help me pursue that goal more effectively.
Hope that helps explain!
I bet this sounds like a dream to at least 20% of folks here. I'd love to read about your transition, how does it feel after a while - that would be amazing HN submission. Good luck!
any humans for your libido? what do they think of your tent, or do you just rent a place for the day when you want to take someone out?
Lol a few careless moments with a woman would end his lifestyle in a hurry. When the judge orders 20% child support they'll impute the income at whatever you can make slaving away at a desk, not what you make in a relatively carefree life with fish and wildlife. In California that would be $20k+ (post-tax), so basically almost all the post-tax income of a low level fish and wildlife worker, assuming you're even lucky enough to get the full-time job.
I lived a somewhat similar life basically enjoying living outdoors and odd jobs and travelling and volunteering until I had a kid; would not recommend consorting with women unless you want to be on the hook to pay rent and chained to a desk for 18 years.
I lived a somewhat similar life basically enjoying living outdoors and odd jobs and travelling and volunteering until I had a kid; would not recommend consorting with women unless you want to be on the hook to pay rent and chained to a desk for 18 years.
>I lived a somewhat similar life basically enjoying living outdoors and odd jobs and travelling and volunteering until I had a kid
You could have just continued that life on a cash basis...
You could have just continued that life on a cash basis...
Having your passport revoked, your DL revoked, liens and eventually seizure order on your vehicles, and a felony warrant out for your arrest would really put a damper into travelling though...
One correction, the current non-enforcement of the nylon favelas is coming from a place of compassion, ostensibly
I just wish we could use selective enforcement as a way to invalidate some laws and policies under the constitution (right its only the opposite, a law can only be questioned by someone it was enforced against, if they can afford doing so)
I just wish we could use selective enforcement as a way to invalidate some laws and policies under the constitution (right its only the opposite, a law can only be questioned by someone it was enforced against, if they can afford doing so)
Anarcho-tyranny. The only crime is self-defense.
In a free society, consenting adults should be free to take whatever drugs they want.
Committing a crime while on drugs should be a crime - the drugs should not be a valid defense.
Committing a crime while on drugs should be a crime - the drugs should not be a valid defense.
Why is that a given without any thought of the consequences?
Heroin and fentanyl addictions ruin peoples lives forever, many regret ever taking it and wish they could escape the cycle of addiction but cant no matter how hard they try.
One reason they cant escape is because fentanyl use is so widespread and normalized the option to return to their old lifestyle is always extremely easy.
Freedom to take fentanyl and live on the street isnt freedom, its quite the opposite. Go walk around the tenderloin or pioneer square to see what this "free society" looks like.
Heroin and fentanyl addictions ruin peoples lives forever, many regret ever taking it and wish they could escape the cycle of addiction but cant no matter how hard they try.
One reason they cant escape is because fentanyl use is so widespread and normalized the option to return to their old lifestyle is always extremely easy.
Freedom to take fentanyl and live on the street isnt freedom, its quite the opposite. Go walk around the tenderloin or pioneer square to see what this "free society" looks like.
Addiction is a problem, and it's a problem now, even with the harmful substances being prohibited. The fact that fentanyl and heroin are criminalized doesn't make anyone less likely to end up using them; the criminal penalties just make them even more dangerous to use. You're assuming that legalizing / decriminalizing fent and h possession the addiction situation would get worse -- I'm not convinced that is true.
If we legalized / decriminalized the possession of all drugs including fent and heroin, then people using them would not suffer criminal penalties for being caught with them. Oftentimes it's social factors like incarceration that make it doubly hard for addicts to escape the cycle of addiction. You are caught using and so you enter jail, and catch a felony on your record, making it even more difficult to land work. Or you end up with trauma from being imprisoned, further damaging your mental health, further driving you to escape with your drug of choice.
Long story short, prohibitionism doesn't really work in the sense that criminal penalties don't really deter drug users from using drugs. It just makes it even more dangerous to use the drugs!
If we legalized / decriminalized the possession of all drugs including fent and heroin, then people using them would not suffer criminal penalties for being caught with them. Oftentimes it's social factors like incarceration that make it doubly hard for addicts to escape the cycle of addiction. You are caught using and so you enter jail, and catch a felony on your record, making it even more difficult to land work. Or you end up with trauma from being imprisoned, further damaging your mental health, further driving you to escape with your drug of choice.
Long story short, prohibitionism doesn't really work in the sense that criminal penalties don't really deter drug users from using drugs. It just makes it even more dangerous to use the drugs!
Criminalization creates other problems:
1. addicts can't get predictable, reliable, pharmaceutical quality drugs. Street drugs aren't predictable, and cause overdoses because of that
2. addicts become criminals because of high street prices, leading to all sorts of associated crime
3. illegal drugs lead to massive profits for criminal organizations
4. people suffering from terrible diseases die in agony because painkillers that would work on their pain are illegal
5. people who suffer from chronic pain, which is not diagnosible, are forced to turn to street drugs
6. legalizing heroin is not going to tempt me to use it. Is it being illegal stopping you from using it?
7. being an addict is punishment enough. Why does anyone think punishing them further will improve matters?
8. consenting adults have a fundamental right to their own bodies. As the pandemic showed, our government is not very good at determining what drugs are best for people. It's more politics than science.
1. addicts can't get predictable, reliable, pharmaceutical quality drugs. Street drugs aren't predictable, and cause overdoses because of that
2. addicts become criminals because of high street prices, leading to all sorts of associated crime
3. illegal drugs lead to massive profits for criminal organizations
4. people suffering from terrible diseases die in agony because painkillers that would work on their pain are illegal
5. people who suffer from chronic pain, which is not diagnosible, are forced to turn to street drugs
6. legalizing heroin is not going to tempt me to use it. Is it being illegal stopping you from using it?
7. being an addict is punishment enough. Why does anyone think punishing them further will improve matters?
8. consenting adults have a fundamental right to their own bodies. As the pandemic showed, our government is not very good at determining what drugs are best for people. It's more politics than science.
This is a most extraordinary claim. Care to mention some evidence?
It's time we started legalizing narcotics en masse, since half a century of fighting "the war on drugs" has made organized crime richer and stronger than anyone believed possible.
Look at the cannabis industry, it's thriving yet hasn't led to a surge in medical emergencies. OTOH the states where it's been legalized have had a huge windfall in tax income which they can put to good use fighting other crime and prepping up social services.
Look at the cannabis industry, it's thriving yet hasn't led to a surge in medical emergencies. OTOH the states where it's been legalized have had a huge windfall in tax income which they can put to good use fighting other crime and prepping up social services.
> which they can put to good use fighting other crime and prepping up social services.
Still waiting for that part.
Still waiting for that part.
[deleted]
That's great. Every time I take my family on a leisurely stroll down Market Street I keep thinking what SF really needs are more people on drugs.
As an old head, lifelong Junglist and retired long serving Minister of Raves for the Party People Party, this is thrilling to hear. Please pass the MDMA, whatever Dutch doublestacks bearing a high dose warning (yes, a real label for 250mg+ per dose) you have in stock. Teslas would be wonderful. Thanks~~~
Now, when can someone enterprising small business startup stand themselves up an independent dispensary? What about the install of the drive through window? Until we allow for take out and achieve feature parity with alcohol these substances are being discriminated against. If intoxicants were races then LSD could use affirmative Action to get it on par with how we treat tobacco and booze. Treat it like alcohol already. Better yet don't concern yourself with what people put in their bodies unless they make you have to intervene for public order or safety's sake.
Without the myopic and impotent moral bias these substances have suffered through since their discoveries this becomes pretty simple and surprisingly straightforward to live with socially.
People don't typically abuse psychedelics to addiction. Notable exceptions being stimulants obviously. LSD is evil, mushrooms are great, and everything in between will have you feeling various degrees of regret and anxiety about what you just took and how long it's going to be warping your reality. That gets dicey if things take a downward turn and things spiral into a true bad trip.
These chemicals are decompilers for the mind and should be treated with the respect you would give your mind's configuration files. The psychological consequences from a bad experience can be lifelong and stay with you forever, but we're adults and hopefully RTFM and follow best practices and take precautions. There should be no one telling me what I can't put in my own body... long as I accept the end result of it.
Sorry for the /rant, this hits close to home and I have many feels about it.
Now, when can someone enterprising small business startup stand themselves up an independent dispensary? What about the install of the drive through window? Until we allow for take out and achieve feature parity with alcohol these substances are being discriminated against. If intoxicants were races then LSD could use affirmative Action to get it on par with how we treat tobacco and booze. Treat it like alcohol already. Better yet don't concern yourself with what people put in their bodies unless they make you have to intervene for public order or safety's sake.
Without the myopic and impotent moral bias these substances have suffered through since their discoveries this becomes pretty simple and surprisingly straightforward to live with socially.
People don't typically abuse psychedelics to addiction. Notable exceptions being stimulants obviously. LSD is evil, mushrooms are great, and everything in between will have you feeling various degrees of regret and anxiety about what you just took and how long it's going to be warping your reality. That gets dicey if things take a downward turn and things spiral into a true bad trip.
These chemicals are decompilers for the mind and should be treated with the respect you would give your mind's configuration files. The psychological consequences from a bad experience can be lifelong and stay with you forever, but we're adults and hopefully RTFM and follow best practices and take precautions. There should be no one telling me what I can't put in my own body... long as I accept the end result of it.
Sorry for the /rant, this hits close to home and I have many feels about it.
This is a good move. Psychedelics (read: naturally occuring or semi-synthetic substances which bind to the 5-HT2A receptor) are generally safer than most other recreational drugs (such as alcohol, opiates, amphetamines, cocaine, tobacco) and tend to have the lowest addiction potential. In addition they have some noted medical effects (treating alcoholism and depression in particular, with potential for treating opiate addiction as well).
The best way to approach psychedelics is with the 'less is more' mentality, although this does fly in the face of consumer capitalism and the profit motive.
The best way to approach psychedelics is with the 'less is more' mentality, although this does fly in the face of consumer capitalism and the profit motive.
"consumer capitalism and the profit motive" and recreational drugs are a bad mix.
....unless your business is dealing drugs
Or buying them for reasonable prices.
> Or buying them for reasonable prices
In the realm of illegal recreational drugs price is a poor indicator of quality. What matters is relationships.
The "free market" in that environment spurs deception, and in the very worst cases, poisoning
In the market for legal recreational drugs, such as it is (alcohol and pharmaceuticals mostly) it spurs cultivating and exploiting addicts.
The answer is regulation, and regulated markets. Not free markets
In the realm of illegal recreational drugs price is a poor indicator of quality. What matters is relationships.
The "free market" in that environment spurs deception, and in the very worst cases, poisoning
In the market for legal recreational drugs, such as it is (alcohol and pharmaceuticals mostly) it spurs cultivating and exploiting addicts.
The answer is regulation, and regulated markets. Not free markets
Are you using the criminalized manufacture and trading of drugs as an example of "free" market failure and a demonstration of why regulated markets work better? Can't tell if it's sarcasm or not.
Given that San Francisco has decriminalised basically any crime, it's curious this took them so long.
While a bit dry at times, there is a fascinating history on the use and misuse of LSD and psychedelics in Michael Pollan's "How To Change Your Mind."
In it he describes how Sandoz knew LSD had potential, they just couldn't figure out how to best apply it to human psychology. So they would literally give it out to anyone who asked for it.
Would recommend it to those looking to learn more about how it got criminalized in the first place. None of the comments I've read so far capture the full picture.
In it he describes how Sandoz knew LSD had potential, they just couldn't figure out how to best apply it to human psychology. So they would literally give it out to anyone who asked for it.
Would recommend it to those looking to learn more about how it got criminalized in the first place. None of the comments I've read so far capture the full picture.
He’s also done a 4-part documentary on Netflix under the same title. It can’t go into the detail that the book does, but what you’re writing about here is covered broadly in the first episode.
“While it doesn’t immediately enact changes to criminal justice policy in San Francisco, it urges police to deprioritize psychedelics as “amongst the lowest priority” for enforcement and requests that “City resources not be used for any investigation, detention, arrest, or prosecution arising out of alleged violations of state and federal law regarding the use of Entheogenic Plants listed on the Federally Controlled Substances Schedule 1 list.”
Heroin seems to fit their definition as well.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> California is On the Brink of Decriminalizing Psychedelics — But It’s Not That Simple
Sure, believe your government. Much of this stuff is grows in nature. It is a personal choice to take it. And it is forbidden by laws! So it used to be legal, before the law was enacted, and now you are a criminal for getting high.
All that is needed is to remove the law! Which is not hard for the right politicians, but still they dont and have not for a long time.
It is not hard to remove the law, and what we have to accept is that decriminalization is what we get. Pfff...
Sure, believe your government. Much of this stuff is grows in nature. It is a personal choice to take it. And it is forbidden by laws! So it used to be legal, before the law was enacted, and now you are a criminal for getting high.
All that is needed is to remove the law! Which is not hard for the right politicians, but still they dont and have not for a long time.
It is not hard to remove the law, and what we have to accept is that decriminalization is what we get. Pfff...
Meta: The nags on this site are overwhelming.
There were 4 nags, three of them pushing a guide to grow my own shrooms.
No means no.
There were 4 nags, three of them pushing a guide to grow my own shrooms.
No means no.
literally got handed a chocolate bar of shrooms on the street in SF while I was joking about “killing me eagle”
Like LE in SF had any priorities anyhow - not big news here.
About time. I'm hoping others will follow up soon.
Now you can have business "trips"
How are people supposed to drive (or walk on the street for that matter), with large number of street population under the influence of various drugs?
Psychedelics are not a street drug. The majority of people struggling with addiction use crack cocaine, crystal meth, and opioids. Those are not decriminalized (technically).
they already do with all the people consuming alcohol, nicotine, etc.
Carefully and with respect for
others’ lives.
How about walking? Is your advice to people of San Francisco and visitors to walk “carefully” on the streets?
Someone asked about driving.
hadlock(1)
finally 16th & Valencia can compete with 16th & Mission. Seriously though this is pretty cool.
This is going to make San Francisco even more sketchy and dangerous.
[deleted]
One of the few good legislations in SF in a long time
safer than alcohol
This growing fad of partial "psychedelic decriminalization" initiatives covers only plant-based ones, which is ridiculous.
Ingesting shrooms are harder to dose than a hit or two of acid. Eating the weight equivalent of one cap or stem can be a completely different experience, from the same spores. This will make the gradual path to full legalization even harder because people aren't trying things that are more easier to dose.
There is no good reason why non plant based drugs like LSD, MDMA and Ketamine are not included so we could really call this a true psychedelic decriminalization measure.
Ingesting shrooms are harder to dose than a hit or two of acid. Eating the weight equivalent of one cap or stem can be a completely different experience, from the same spores. This will make the gradual path to full legalization even harder because people aren't trying things that are more easier to dose.
There is no good reason why non plant based drugs like LSD, MDMA and Ketamine are not included so we could really call this a true psychedelic decriminalization measure.
I think that one at least passable reason for just the “natural” substances to be focused on is to bring religious people under the big tent of eventual psychedelic legalization. Leaning on arguments such as God wouldn’t have made the substance if He didn’t want us to use it resonates with a lot of potential allies to the overall psychedelic legalization cause.
A second reason comes from the group Decriminalize Nature [0] in their resolution to the Oakland City Council when pushing for decriminalization there[1]: “…reestablish humans’ inalienable and direct relationship to nature.” That is, some have this explicit goal and might not care much for the synthesized psychedelics.
0: https://www.decriminalizenature.org/ 1: https://www.decriminalizenature.org/media/attachments/2019/0...
A second reason comes from the group Decriminalize Nature [0] in their resolution to the Oakland City Council when pushing for decriminalization there[1]: “…reestablish humans’ inalienable and direct relationship to nature.” That is, some have this explicit goal and might not care much for the synthesized psychedelics.
0: https://www.decriminalizenature.org/ 1: https://www.decriminalizenature.org/media/attachments/2019/0...
Agree with this incremental step from a political perspective as an easy sell / quick win. But, it's imperative that this be understood as an incremental step. The hazard here is equating "natural" with "safe" and "synthetic" with "unsafe".
Eventually, this mindset will have to be dropped because morphine, cocaine, and cyanide are natural (heck, methamphetamines is found in trace amounts in some species of acacia). MDMA is synthetic but can be lethal in a single dose. LSD is semi-synthetic and one of the safest of the bunch--in fact, it's safer than the "natural" chemical feedstocks of its synthesization routes (LSA or ergot).
The shift will have to be to evaluating each molecule on its merits and risk profile. Sure, the whole "natural" argument feels warm-'n'-fuzzy for a lot of people--but sadly it's a poor metric for determining safety. After all, our brains' receptors can't tell whether a molecule originated from a plant or from a lab.
TL;DR: LSD, Cannabis, Psilocybin, Mescaline, DMT, (maybe) MDMA, and their various pro-drugs/analogues should be legal and regulated--regardless of their source. Morphine? I mean, the libertarian in me says "OK", but the more practical side says "probably not a great idea". In the end, none of this is rocket science--but the DEA, the broader US Government, and religion have turned it into a far more complicated thing than it needs to be.
Eventually, this mindset will have to be dropped because morphine, cocaine, and cyanide are natural (heck, methamphetamines is found in trace amounts in some species of acacia). MDMA is synthetic but can be lethal in a single dose. LSD is semi-synthetic and one of the safest of the bunch--in fact, it's safer than the "natural" chemical feedstocks of its synthesization routes (LSA or ergot).
The shift will have to be to evaluating each molecule on its merits and risk profile. Sure, the whole "natural" argument feels warm-'n'-fuzzy for a lot of people--but sadly it's a poor metric for determining safety. After all, our brains' receptors can't tell whether a molecule originated from a plant or from a lab.
TL;DR: LSD, Cannabis, Psilocybin, Mescaline, DMT, (maybe) MDMA, and their various pro-drugs/analogues should be legal and regulated--regardless of their source. Morphine? I mean, the libertarian in me says "OK", but the more practical side says "probably not a great idea". In the end, none of this is rocket science--but the DEA, the broader US Government, and religion have turned it into a far more complicated thing than it needs to be.
Maybe it has to do with the fact that a large majority of the LSD/MDMA sold on the streets is not at all pure, and frequently is not even LSD/MDMA at all!
Yes, there are research chemicals that are tasteless, and feel sort of like LSD. They are not LSD, and they could fuck you up.
You can't easily lace shrooms
Yes, there are research chemicals that are tasteless, and feel sort of like LSD. They are not LSD, and they could fuck you up.
You can't easily lace shrooms
>You can't easily lace shrooms
Well, it's more that there's no point. If you've already gone to the trouble of growing mushroom-shaped things, adding anything to them won't increase their street value, so it's a waste. The only way to optimize profits for a producer is to grow mushrooms as fast as possible without any regard for potency.
Well, it's more that there's no point. If you've already gone to the trouble of growing mushroom-shaped things, adding anything to them won't increase their street value, so it's a waste. The only way to optimize profits for a producer is to grow mushrooms as fast as possible without any regard for potency.
[deleted]
Imagine thinking you have freedom when you can't decide what to put in your own body.
Imagine being happy with your tax dollars funding the "investigation, detention, arrest, or prosecution" of people using substances rather than teacher's salaries, solving homelessness, public transportation, or exploration of space.
Imagine being happy with your tax dollars funding the "investigation, detention, arrest, or prosecution" of people using substances rather than teacher's salaries, solving homelessness, public transportation, or exploration of space.
Ah absolutionists. Either we can all drink bleach or we're trapped in some orwellian hellscape of ruination to succor a distant memory of the time we could huff the sweet ichor of airplane glue in peace.
We as a society generally need criminal justice reform, but it wont come at the hands of addressing the illness of addition through exploring space instead. better bus schedules doesnt magically demilitarize the multibillion dollar industry predicated on a loophole in the thirteenth amendment. I can only hope the decriminalization of psychedelic drugs is predicated on sound research but alas, it feels like most SF legislation is brinksmanship between seattle and portland to see who can pedal their city into oblivion fastest with random virtue signalling.
We as a society generally need criminal justice reform, but it wont come at the hands of addressing the illness of addition through exploring space instead. better bus schedules doesnt magically demilitarize the multibillion dollar industry predicated on a loophole in the thirteenth amendment. I can only hope the decriminalization of psychedelic drugs is predicated on sound research but alas, it feels like most SF legislation is brinksmanship between seattle and portland to see who can pedal their city into oblivion fastest with random virtue signalling.
What are you even advocating for? Continuing to prosecute and lock people up when we already have millions in prison? That isn't helping anyone.
The war on drugs is over and the drugs won.
The war on drugs is over and the drugs won.
Purely pedantic however I just wanted to point out that everyone can in fact drink bleach if they wanted to.
Well suicide is a crime in most states, so technically they're not allowed to
> Ah absolutionists. Either we can all drink bleach
I'm confused if this even reaches the bar for a strawman... Today, I am legally allowed to drink bleach. It's not breaking the law, just my body.
I cannot, however, take psilocybin, which breaks the law, but gives new insights into the body.
We are indeed trapped in some orwellian hellscape.
I'm confused if this even reaches the bar for a strawman... Today, I am legally allowed to drink bleach. It's not breaking the law, just my body.
I cannot, however, take psilocybin, which breaks the law, but gives new insights into the body.
We are indeed trapped in some orwellian hellscape.
Correct me if I'm wrong I don't even think ingestion, of psilocybin, is illegal it's just possession.
[deleted]
If bleach was only available in limited quantities after showing an ID, ostensibly so as to prevent people from drinking it, I think most people would rightly call that Orwellian.
Arresting people who are psychotic from meth and forcibly preventing them from accessing that and Fentanyl would pretty much completely solve the homeless problem where I live. Unfortunately, those drugs have now been decriminalized, and somehow the "systemic" problem of homelessness has shot through the roof.
The freedom to kill yourself in public is no kind of freedom at all. I also don't see the legalizers working to "solve homelessness", just to enable it, while expecting the government or someone else to "solve" it.
The freedom to kill yourself in public is no kind of freedom at all. I also don't see the legalizers working to "solve homelessness", just to enable it, while expecting the government or someone else to "solve" it.
Whoa there... the right to kill yourself should be an inalienable right - regardless of your location.
Without the option to crash - you aren't a pilot.
If and when we find the secret to immortality - this right to end your own life how you see it will be eroded by corporate greed.
Tangential point, back to the main one.
There are 2 classes of drugs I would not legalize and you named one of them. the opioid and amphetamine are a chemical moth to the flame trap - And I support making that trap harder to find/get into...
Psychs on the other hand, RC's of course are dangerous due to their inherent novelty, Don't do the same things as Meth/fentanyl/crack, and generally are less dangerous/abusable. Basically anything that rewires the dopamine reward circuit should be highly suspect at best - and banned at worst.
Most psyches build a tolerance quickly in the brain - resulting in weeks/months between effective 'trips'. To abuse psyches is tough - and not desirable (after a trip most people want a rest for a long while from doing that again)
Yeah - freedom of brain chemistry should also be an unalienable right. If the government tells you what is allowed brain chemistry and what is not: that's government mind control...
If someone controls what you ingest, see and hear: they control (to some extent) what you think.
Without the option to crash - you aren't a pilot.
If and when we find the secret to immortality - this right to end your own life how you see it will be eroded by corporate greed.
Tangential point, back to the main one.
There are 2 classes of drugs I would not legalize and you named one of them. the opioid and amphetamine are a chemical moth to the flame trap - And I support making that trap harder to find/get into...
Psychs on the other hand, RC's of course are dangerous due to their inherent novelty, Don't do the same things as Meth/fentanyl/crack, and generally are less dangerous/abusable. Basically anything that rewires the dopamine reward circuit should be highly suspect at best - and banned at worst.
Most psyches build a tolerance quickly in the brain - resulting in weeks/months between effective 'trips'. To abuse psyches is tough - and not desirable (after a trip most people want a rest for a long while from doing that again)
Yeah - freedom of brain chemistry should also be an unalienable right. If the government tells you what is allowed brain chemistry and what is not: that's government mind control...
If someone controls what you ingest, see and hear: they control (to some extent) what you think.
>> There are 2 classes of drugs I would not legalize
>> freedom of brain chemistry should also be an unalienable right
So, personally I completely agree with your first statement (now) about making the trap harder to get into. I also - as a matter of logic and principle - agree with your second statement.
The problem is that those two statements are completely contradictory. Doesn't the right to control your brain chemistry include the right to do meth? Even if it makes you psychotic? And even if your psychosis ends up violently harming others?
So I think it goes to whether we're willing to take some rights away to have a society that's sustainable and livable for a majority of people. And where to draw the line is something I think every thoughtful person needs to wrestle with. I certainly support the right to suicide, but not the right to do so in front of children, for example. If you take it from the principle of "everything is legal except that which harms others," at least there's a starting point for a logical position that doesn't contradict itself.
>> freedom of brain chemistry should also be an unalienable right
So, personally I completely agree with your first statement (now) about making the trap harder to get into. I also - as a matter of logic and principle - agree with your second statement.
The problem is that those two statements are completely contradictory. Doesn't the right to control your brain chemistry include the right to do meth? Even if it makes you psychotic? And even if your psychosis ends up violently harming others?
So I think it goes to whether we're willing to take some rights away to have a society that's sustainable and livable for a majority of people. And where to draw the line is something I think every thoughtful person needs to wrestle with. I certainly support the right to suicide, but not the right to do so in front of children, for example. If you take it from the principle of "everything is legal except that which harms others," at least there's a starting point for a logical position that doesn't contradict itself.
Low dose amphetamines are pretty safe. We've given a lot of them to kids with adhd over the years
In low does - for certain brains - for certain reasons - aye: there are medical uses.
Above I am speaking solely of recreational use.
Above I am speaking solely of recreational use.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I don't think SF's enormous homelessness issue has anything to do with spending too much money addressing addiction.
Right because homelessness doesn't have anything to do with the substances you put in your body.
Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies, generic tangents, and internet tropes.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Yes, I am a bit embarrassed by how inflammatory that appears to be. I am actually a bit happy that the HN algorithm devalued the post fairly significantly.
Yeah that's exactly the effect the guideline tries to head off which isn't necessarily obvious from just reading the guideline but makes more sense when you see it happen even if you didn't intend it.
Yes they should try it in san francisco maybe there'd be less hobos and you could use the public spaces occasionally.
I used to be super libertarian but Ive come to realize that this only works if you, the one availing yourself of liberty, are the one that bears the consequences of your bad decisions. Increasingly, it seems, you do not. The dumber and more anti-social you act, the more victim status you are awarded with as the left half of our polity trips all over themselves rushing to make excuses for you.
And then all the people who'd just like to sit in a park while also not being menaced by drug addicts are told to shut up.
No thanks. We, as a society, cannot handle the liberties we already have.
I used to be super libertarian but Ive come to realize that this only works if you, the one availing yourself of liberty, are the one that bears the consequences of your bad decisions. Increasingly, it seems, you do not. The dumber and more anti-social you act, the more victim status you are awarded with as the left half of our polity trips all over themselves rushing to make excuses for you.
And then all the people who'd just like to sit in a park while also not being menaced by drug addicts are told to shut up.
No thanks. We, as a society, cannot handle the liberties we already have.
Thank God none of this currently happens with drugs being illegal.
> Thank God none of this currently happens with drugs being illegal.
This has nothing to do with the vast range of laws we have in the books. It's a question of complete lack of enforcement.
When defecating in public at a park carries no consequences whatsoever, do you really have a law that makes that illegal?
Some guy just shot and killed four people in Memphis. Google it. The man was arrested in 2020 for "attempted first-degree murder, aggravated assault, using a firearm to commit a dangerous felony and reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon". It took until April of 2021 to convict him to three years. He was released 11 months later.
As the Mayor put it, four people would be alive today and, my addition, a number of others would not be wounded in the hospital, if this person --who is and was an obvious danger to society-- had been where he belonged, in prison.
Laws mean nothing when they are not enforced.
Another tragic example is what has been happening at the US border since the new administration took office. It's a mess. It's criminal, but nobody is enforcing the laws. So much fentanyl and other drugs is coming in that I am sure we have lost control. In my town alone I think we've had over 300 deaths so far this year due to fentanyl.
We have laws. Things are illegal. And yet, you can't sit at the park with your kids to enjoy a nice sunny afternoon because the laws mean nothing when the people we elect to look after society choose not to enforce them.
This is not a formula for a society that trends towards better outcomes. It's crazy. You have people who have never even thought about owning guns asking about gun ownership and buying firearms because they no longer feel safe.
Not to go too far. Over a year ago, I caught and arrested a guy who broke into my neighbor's home across the street. The guy probably caused over $10K in damage to the home entering, destroying the security system and breaking through the door from the garage into the home. This guy, we came to find out, had a prior record in another state. We finally went to the hearing last week. It took almost a year. I don't think the guy did more than 30 days in jail. What did the DA's office, led by George Gascon (I can only describe him as demented and, yes, with history in San Francisco) do? They let the guy go. He is supposed to enroll in some kind of a counseling program. Brilliant. I hope he doesn't kill anyone when he returns to crime.
This has nothing to do with the vast range of laws we have in the books. It's a question of complete lack of enforcement.
When defecating in public at a park carries no consequences whatsoever, do you really have a law that makes that illegal?
Some guy just shot and killed four people in Memphis. Google it. The man was arrested in 2020 for "attempted first-degree murder, aggravated assault, using a firearm to commit a dangerous felony and reckless endangerment with a deadly weapon". It took until April of 2021 to convict him to three years. He was released 11 months later.
As the Mayor put it, four people would be alive today and, my addition, a number of others would not be wounded in the hospital, if this person --who is and was an obvious danger to society-- had been where he belonged, in prison.
Laws mean nothing when they are not enforced.
Another tragic example is what has been happening at the US border since the new administration took office. It's a mess. It's criminal, but nobody is enforcing the laws. So much fentanyl and other drugs is coming in that I am sure we have lost control. In my town alone I think we've had over 300 deaths so far this year due to fentanyl.
We have laws. Things are illegal. And yet, you can't sit at the park with your kids to enjoy a nice sunny afternoon because the laws mean nothing when the people we elect to look after society choose not to enforce them.
This is not a formula for a society that trends towards better outcomes. It's crazy. You have people who have never even thought about owning guns asking about gun ownership and buying firearms because they no longer feel safe.
Not to go too far. Over a year ago, I caught and arrested a guy who broke into my neighbor's home across the street. The guy probably caused over $10K in damage to the home entering, destroying the security system and breaking through the door from the garage into the home. This guy, we came to find out, had a prior record in another state. We finally went to the hearing last week. It took almost a year. I don't think the guy did more than 30 days in jail. What did the DA's office, led by George Gascon (I can only describe him as demented and, yes, with history in San Francisco) do? They let the guy go. He is supposed to enroll in some kind of a counseling program. Brilliant. I hope he doesn't kill anyone when he returns to crime.
I don't have a strong opinion, but there's a difference between "making drugs illegal solves all problems" and "making drugs illegal minimizes drug use".
I'm not well-versed in political... philosophy!? but for the sake of the argument: perhaps SF didn't fully embrace libertarian ideals? "you can do what you want, but you must not impose on others" sounds fair. you can take any drugs you want, but if you shit in the street - you suffer consequences. Pose danger to others - you suffer consequences. etc. That's not what I'm seeing happening in SF.
> you can't decide what to put in your own body
I truly don't care what anyone wants to put into their bodies or do to themselves.
My problem comes in when they affect others. That applies to a wide range of situations from excessive drinking to smoking (ever go to a concert and you have to sit in a cloud of smoke, breathing what came out of others' mouths?) and more.
I think everyone should be free to do as they please to themselves. The red line is when their choices infringe on someone else's right to not be affected in any way by their decision. If you choose to smoke, that does not give you the right to have the smoke that comes out of your mouth go into my lungs.
Respect for freedom requires respecting everyone's freedoms and rights. A self-serving stance will never result in expanding freedom.
Why is this important?
To continue with the hypothetical, if the smoker does not respect the right of the non-smoker to breath clean air, the non-smoker will eventually want to (need to!) seek ways to restrict the smoker's freedom to smoke. Everyone loses because society becomes more restrictive.
In a sense, not much different from the concept of freedom of speech. In order to preserve it you have to allow --and protect-- that with which you disagree to have a voice.
I truly don't care what anyone wants to put into their bodies or do to themselves.
My problem comes in when they affect others. That applies to a wide range of situations from excessive drinking to smoking (ever go to a concert and you have to sit in a cloud of smoke, breathing what came out of others' mouths?) and more.
I think everyone should be free to do as they please to themselves. The red line is when their choices infringe on someone else's right to not be affected in any way by their decision. If you choose to smoke, that does not give you the right to have the smoke that comes out of your mouth go into my lungs.
Respect for freedom requires respecting everyone's freedoms and rights. A self-serving stance will never result in expanding freedom.
Why is this important?
To continue with the hypothetical, if the smoker does not respect the right of the non-smoker to breath clean air, the non-smoker will eventually want to (need to!) seek ways to restrict the smoker's freedom to smoke. Everyone loses because society becomes more restrictive.
In a sense, not much different from the concept of freedom of speech. In order to preserve it you have to allow --and protect-- that with which you disagree to have a voice.
[deleted]
If you want to kill yourself with drugs then have at it. I’m 100% for the legalization. However, I don’t want to pay for your rehab nor your medical bills associated with your drug use. So no emergency services for overdose, your choice your consequences. Further, you can’t expect a sympathetic disposition when it comes to prosecuting people who commit crimes to further their drug use either.
tell me you've never taken a psychedelic without having to say that you've never taken a psychedelic.
[deleted]
Those laws exist because it leads to homelessness. Homelessness is a drug addiction problem. Sick and tired of people ignoring this correlation.
The Netherlands backpedaled after a couple of very serious incidents regarding many psychedelics. Public suicide, animal sacrifice, crime etc. I don’t see how it will be different in SF.
This is ridiculous. A single French teenager(17yo) jumped off the Nemo Building[1], which lead to mushrooms being banned. There are several problems here. This building has a low railing around the tall publicly accessible portion, and no real safety features to prevent jumping. Teens this age are notorious for impulsively jumping from these types of structures, it's why The Vessel in Hudson Yards in NYC was closed. There's no real reason to suspect the mushrooms caused the incident given the previous two factors.
As for the animal sacrifices, I couldn't find a single news article from 2000-2007 referencing this. I also couldn't find any good crime numbers.
The whole illegalization push in 2007 from available news sources was tied to this one suicide and damage to French-Dutch relations.
[1]https://www.google.com/search?q=nemo+building+amsterdam&rlz=...
As for the animal sacrifices, I couldn't find a single news article from 2000-2007 referencing this. I also couldn't find any good crime numbers.
The whole illegalization push in 2007 from available news sources was tied to this one suicide and damage to French-Dutch relations.
[1]https://www.google.com/search?q=nemo+building+amsterdam&rlz=...
Having stayed on a crane in Amsterdam (Faralda crane hotel) which was absolutely thrilling and simultaneously insane, I can vouch for the fact that 'safety standards' in Dutch buildings are far lower than those in the US. I actually found it refreshing, to be honest, from the railings and gates I'm used to in the US, but there was nothing that was going to stop me from even accidentally taking a dive off the crane. The upshot of that is a rooftop crane hot tub, though, so I mean...
It's a cool place for sure. It seems like the US at 14 per 100,000 and The Netherlands at 11 per 100,000 have similar suicide rates. Jumping makes up a far higher share in the Netherlands at 3rd or 4th most common depending on the year (per statista.com), and barely registers in the US. Gun availability may be the reason here, but I wouldn't count out the total lack of safety infrastructure around heights as a factor.
For sure; I have to say, while it was expensive (to the tune of $800-1000 euros for a single night, hence why I only stayed a single night), there is very little more thrilling than staying on a crane that still moves in the wind (giving you a new view every few hours), or skinny dipping in a hot tub on the roof of said crane because you're the only ones staying there, etc.
I know it sounds like I'm writing a Yelp review, but it was fantastic. :)
I know it sounds like I'm writing a Yelp review, but it was fantastic. :)
That does sound fun.
So silly, considering all the noise and accidents alcohol directly causes. But then a single bad case after someone taking psychedelics, and they reverse.
Its not silly, for some psychedelics are fine and they can handle them ok. But others have psychotic breaks that are irreversible. I feel like SF is already a city that is very dysfunctional with crazies screaming at nothing, why make a really bad situation worse?
Some people who drink alcohol are fine and they can handle it okay. Others drink and drive and kill people, or become addicted and/or kill themselves. Should we go back to prohibition?
This is a straw man argument, having a permanent mental change after having a "bad trip" on psychedelics is not analogous to drinking a beer or too much whisky and doing something dumb(or worse). There is not evidence that a person consumes one drink and goes into psychosis or has permanent mental changes like with psychedelics. I am not against having psychedelics for certain situations(under controlled situations) but you are playing with fire and your mind and sanity are the tinder and are rolling the dice so to speak.
Citation required. I have yet to see a single reputable paper or study that describes a 'permanent mental change' for the worse, like psychosis, after a single encounter with psychedelics.
What are the negative permanent effects of a "bad trip"?
Perhaps not a single bad trip, but a couple years of bad drug habits can lead to permanent brain damage among those who aren't careful and knowledgeable about what they ingest and the dosage. It is a factor in the homelessness crisis.
Right, opoids and meth and etc can cause permanent brain damage over time. But psychedelics...?
So your solution is in principle to incarcerate the overwhelming majority of users who suffer no ill effects…
Do you also advocate for the criminalization of alcohol?
Do you also advocate for the criminalization of alcohol?
Textbook whataboutism--and I hate that phrase.
Yes, and both substances should be controlled. Uncontrolled hard drugs are harmful to society, but it seems like the ignorant, naive youth of today are going to have to learn some hard lessons on the topic from first principles.
Yes, and both substances should be controlled. Uncontrolled hard drugs are harmful to society, but it seems like the ignorant, naive youth of today are going to have to learn some hard lessons on the topic from first principles.
Controlled hard drugs are harmful to society, the only country that has decriminalized everything is doing very good in that regard.
> Yes, and both substances should be controlled.
We tried that here in the US. The result was a a proliferation of organized crime.
We tried that here in the US. The result was a a proliferation of organized crime.
Yes we made murder illegal and organized crime engages in that too. Guess laws are just pointless
Organized crime doesn't profit from murder to anywhere close to the same degree it did from illicit alcohol sales or still does from illicit drug sales.
Crying "whataboutism" isn't a rhetorical shortcut to dismiss a reasonable argument. It's hypocritical and silly to allow alcohol and not other recreational drugs with similar safety profiles. It's also untenable to completely restrict alcohol.
Similar safety profiles? I'm not a drinker, but I think you need to drink a LOT of alcohol to state hallucinating? I.e. most people don't do that.
Yes, but hallucinations aren't the main problem. Assaulting people and zigzaging on the road after just a few drinks is a bigger problem than having blurry vision and seeing weird colors. I took a shitton of psychedelics, I never saw anything that wasn't there.
Psychedelics never made me black out, piss on the floor/all over the room, never made me want to assault someone, or made me act like an asshole, but alcohol on the other hand....
Psychedelics never made me black out, piss on the floor/all over the room, never made me want to assault someone, or made me act like an asshole, but alcohol on the other hand....
You might be overestimating the effects of hallucination. Someone who's hallucinating is not necessarily more impaired than someone who is drunk.
Imagine this- you hear something behind you (a real sound), and for a moment you are startled, thinking someone else is in the room. You soon realize that this isn't the case.
Someone on hallucinogens might take a moment longer to realize that there is nobody there. They imagine the intruder a little more vividly, their heart rate goes up a bit more. But just for a moment.
In contrast, if there actually is someone there, a drunk person might not realize it. Their senses are dulled. Instead of seeing things that aren't there, they fail to notice things that are there. It's the opposite.
Imagine this- you hear something behind you (a real sound), and for a moment you are startled, thinking someone else is in the room. You soon realize that this isn't the case.
Someone on hallucinogens might take a moment longer to realize that there is nobody there. They imagine the intruder a little more vividly, their heart rate goes up a bit more. But just for a moment.
In contrast, if there actually is someone there, a drunk person might not realize it. Their senses are dulled. Instead of seeing things that aren't there, they fail to notice things that are there. It's the opposite.
You're right that the safety profiles are dissimilar, but if anything it's the other way around: alcohol is significantly more likely to result in long-term illness or death than e.g. LSD.
To start hallucinating? Sure.
To engage in dangerous behavior? Hardly.
That said, alcohol is a lot more predictable in its effects for a given dosage. And also the dosages are a lot more reliable. There's a reason it's perceived "not as bad" as hallucinogenic drugs.
To engage in dangerous behavior? Hardly.
That said, alcohol is a lot more predictable in its effects for a given dosage. And also the dosages are a lot more reliable. There's a reason it's perceived "not as bad" as hallucinogenic drugs.
"Similar" does not mean "identical." Yes, they affect the brain in different ways. The net safety profile for individuals and society is (arguably) similar.
This isn't whataboutism, it's very specifically comparing the societal consequences of two drugs and the possible consequences.
It's not whataboutism bring up other risks that as a society we tolerate, when we are thinking about restricting one.
It's not whataboutism bring up other risks that as a society we tolerate, when we are thinking about restricting one.
One drug is possibly more harmful but is already legal almost everywhere, deeply ingrained in many aspects of Western society and has a history of issues regarding criminalization
The other is possibly less harmful but it is currently illegal/controlled pretty much everywhere and has a niche demand.
I think its entirely reasonable to think that we should not open up a whole new can of worms.
The other is possibly less harmful but it is currently illegal/controlled pretty much everywhere and has a niche demand.
I think its entirely reasonable to think that we should not open up a whole new can of worms.
How is the can of worms not already open? The War on Drugs has failed to put a dent in drug consumption habits.
My suspicion why there was an uptick of incidents in NL/Amsterdam was the influx of people specifically seeking those substances out, with little safety education or experience. If they were more widely available, the incidents would be far more diffuse, and likely fall below the noise floor. Plus, wider awareness means better overall substance education and understanding, meaning fewer folks getting in over their heads and acting a fool.
The same "can of worms" argument was leveled against cannabis legalization, and turned out to be overblown, there was no outbreak of reefer madness.
My suspicion why there was an uptick of incidents in NL/Amsterdam was the influx of people specifically seeking those substances out, with little safety education or experience. If they were more widely available, the incidents would be far more diffuse, and likely fall below the noise floor. Plus, wider awareness means better overall substance education and understanding, meaning fewer folks getting in over their heads and acting a fool.
The same "can of worms" argument was leveled against cannabis legalization, and turned out to be overblown, there was no outbreak of reefer madness.
Another way of looking at it is that right now only the kids buy and consume shrooms, and they do so completely unsupervised.
Specifically for the psychedelics, the danger is that people will see capitalist structures for how ridiculous they are
They aren't dangerous to individuals, only rent seekers
They aren't dangerous to individuals, only rent seekers
Good time to quote the cosmic bard, Terence McKenna.
"Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behavior and information processing. They open you up to the possibility that everything you know is wrong."
"Psychedelics are illegal not because a loving government is concerned that you may jump out of a third story window. Psychedelics are illegal because they dissolve opinion structures and culturally laid down models of behavior and information processing. They open you up to the possibility that everything you know is wrong."
[deleted]
That's the worst argument for socialism I've ever encountered.
There was no argument for socialism.
Such statements are never made in a vacuum. There's always context, even if unstated.
It’s not an argument, it’s a drug-induced psychotic musing…
> Public suicide, animal sacrifice, crime etc.
That's just normal in SF streets already lol.
That's just normal in SF streets already lol.
No different than reefer madness. People do all that shit without psychedelics
Psychedelics still can’t legally be sold in SF. What good is criminalizing simple possession?
Besides, for every animal sacrifice on LSD there are 100 (probably more) drunk drivers crashing into trees, parked cars, oncoming traffic, and pedestrians, and alcohol is totally legal and widely used.
Besides, for every animal sacrifice on LSD there are 100 (probably more) drunk drivers crashing into trees, parked cars, oncoming traffic, and pedestrians, and alcohol is totally legal and widely used.
> Besides, for every animal sacrifice on LSD there are 100 (probably more) drunk drivers crashing into trees, parked cars, oncoming traffic, and pedestrians, and alcohol is totally legal and widely used.
That seems to ignore the fact that there are far more people drinking than tripping. I'm not saying that with an equal numbers of users the math wouldn't still make drinking more dangerous, I really don't know, but it's an unfair comparison.
That seems to ignore the fact that there are far more people drinking than tripping. I'm not saying that with an equal numbers of users the math wouldn't still make drinking more dangerous, I really don't know, but it's an unfair comparison.
Unsure if by "parked cars" you've meant crashing into parked cars or parked cars by themselves being a bad thing
I think they meant "crashing into parked cars". Because if you interpret it the other way, it implies that they also consider the mere existence of oncoming traffic and pedestrians a bad thing.
>it implies that they also consider the mere existence of oncoming traffic and pedestrians a bad thing
Why not?
Why not?
I'd love to read a bit more about this. Do you have any interesting reading on how psychedelics were legalized or decriminalized in the Netherlands and the resulting affects on society? I'll Google it, but maybe you would know better :-)
Lol, these stories are like bringing up some horrific accident every time someone talks about cars.
Things happen, that's life, but it's really important to put things into proportion at some point.
Things happen, that's life, but it's really important to put things into proportion at some point.
You can already get hard drugs in the open here, the serious incidents would already be happening
[deleted]
Already happened across the bay in Oakland. Unfortunately Oakland police is so dysfunctional that it's impossible to know if decriminalization has caused any change in problematic public behaviors.
> Oakland police is so dysfunctional
https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/guqz5t/comment/fsk...
https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/guqz5t/comment/fsk...
tikkun(1)
This is fantastic! I hope they also decriminalize Salvia (if it's scheduled there) it's a (plant that has a number of) very very good molecule in my experience (which was way back around the millennium before it was scheduled)
As if the city wasn't bad enough, I guess they would rather let people get hooked on even more drugs instead of fix anything.
Maybe if they are high enough they will not be able to tell how bad things are.
Maybe if they are high enough they will not be able to tell how bad things are.
> Psychedelics (serotonergic hallucinogens) are powerful psychoactive substances that alter perception and mood and affect numerous cognitive processes. They are generally considered physiologically safe and do not lead to dependence or addiction.
... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4813425/
Decriminalizing psychedelics is likely to help with the treatment of mental health problems that often lead people to substance abuse.
The idea that substance abuse is a character flaw is outdated and harmful. Some substances are certainly dangerous. Psychedelics are not in most cases. Condemning people who are using dangerous substances perpetuates the cycle of shame which keeps people from being able to heal.
... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4813425/
Decriminalizing psychedelics is likely to help with the treatment of mental health problems that often lead people to substance abuse.
The idea that substance abuse is a character flaw is outdated and harmful. Some substances are certainly dangerous. Psychedelics are not in most cases. Condemning people who are using dangerous substances perpetuates the cycle of shame which keeps people from being able to heal.
> The idea that substance abuse is a character flaw is outdated and harmful.
Sure, once you're already physically addicted, taking the next hit isn't a character flaw. But being willing to take the first hit before you're addicted is absolutely a gigantic character flaw.
Sure, once you're already physically addicted, taking the next hit isn't a character flaw. But being willing to take the first hit before you're addicted is absolutely a gigantic character flaw.
No. It is not.
-- the idea of getting "hooked" on psychedelics is - frankly - laughable - primarily because - well - they're not physiologically addictive - and additionally - because they're medically used to treat addiction --
https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/classic-psychedelics...
https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/classic-psychedelics...
I'm appalled by your hyphen usage
Psychedelics aren't addictive- hyphens are.
Especially the joined hyphens, they represent marriage.
And as in bash, means the end of options, and the beginning of arguments.
"em-dash" is the word you're looking for. I like it, it's like Céline or Bukowski were forum commenters.
To be fair, while they are definitely not physiologically addictive, they can be psychologically or emotionally addictive.
(I agree with you, but I think all too often people talk about addiction as if it is solely physical; emotional dependence is a real thing too)
(I agree with you, but I think all too often people talk about addiction as if it is solely physical; emotional dependence is a real thing too)
thats why people never get addicted, oh wait people abuse them habitually all the time.
drugs of any kind are addictive, infact even mere behaviors are addictive let alone drugs.
Its truly a mark of an individual in denial when they claim their favorite drugs aren't bad for them.
yes drugs are bad for you.
yes even weed is bad for you and is very addictive.
And people always bring up the medical use, but we all know what its going to be primarily used for.
We need to treat these drugs like we do other medicine, criminalize it if its not a prescribed one unless its very weak.
Its a huge problem if we let people ruin themselves with this garbage under the guise of decriminalizing for medicine, when we already are able to just prescribe them as medicine usually.
drugs of any kind are addictive, infact even mere behaviors are addictive let alone drugs.
Its truly a mark of an individual in denial when they claim their favorite drugs aren't bad for them.
yes drugs are bad for you.
yes even weed is bad for you and is very addictive.
And people always bring up the medical use, but we all know what its going to be primarily used for.
We need to treat these drugs like we do other medicine, criminalize it if its not a prescribed one unless its very weak.
Its a huge problem if we let people ruin themselves with this garbage under the guise of decriminalizing for medicine, when we already are able to just prescribe them as medicine usually.
-- a long conversation - anything in excess seems unhealthy(bad) for humans - be it - gossip - caffeine - cannabis - religion - all abused habitually - since as long as we've documented - excess has ruined civilizations - true -- on one side - dictatorship - the other - chaos - humans are strange emotional - primal creatures - frameworks for education would be ideal - societal resource is low - so time ticks on - we try our best - learn from the past - iterate into the future - hope for the best --
There are some problems with psilocybin and ayahuasca but "getting hooked" isn't really one of them.
I was just there for the first time in two years. Based on all the comments here on HN, I expected to walk through a hell-scape. After spending a week, mostly on foot in the city... a lot of this talk seems overblown.
Not sure what you define to be a hellscape, but Market St definitely fits the bill especially after 8pm. I've never before had to worry about zombies but in SF you do.
If you think SF is the norm then you should visit a city with competent governance and see what normal should be.
If you think SF is the norm then you should visit a city with competent governance and see what normal should be.
> I've never before had to worry about zombies but in SF you do.
Well, more drugs, more zombies.
Well, more drugs, more zombies.
Psychedelics are quite a bit different from heroin/meth/fentanyl. The problem is that SF tolerates the latter.
I visit SF occassionally from East Bay. Absolute disaster. Where did you go? I think situation is more dire than it seems in East Bay. Both are succumbing to third-world urban decay and infrastructure rot.
It really is area specific, and I think that is on purpose. When there was the superbowl in SF, all of a sudden certain BART stations stopped smelling like piss and homeless population in those areas were not there any more. Tell me where the homeless camps are around the marina or other wealthy neighborhoods of SF with high foot traffic. Suspiciously missing or hard to find...
Since it's done on purpose, if SF wanted to actually revitalize their downtown they would lay down the law on their mainline tunnel transit stations, caltrain stations, ferry stations, tourist hotel hot spots and market st like they lay down the law in the marina with it's crazy high foot traffic. Yes it is 'moving the problem around', but at least it makes people feel safe and not nauseated where they enter and exit from SF. I bet one good chunk of why people are not coming back to offices to SF is because the transit safety and cleanliness experience is not good there.
Since it's done on purpose, if SF wanted to actually revitalize their downtown they would lay down the law on their mainline tunnel transit stations, caltrain stations, ferry stations, tourist hotel hot spots and market st like they lay down the law in the marina with it's crazy high foot traffic. Yes it is 'moving the problem around', but at least it makes people feel safe and not nauseated where they enter and exit from SF. I bet one good chunk of why people are not coming back to offices to SF is because the transit safety and cleanliness experience is not good there.
I've had my car broken into 3 times in different parts of SF. Nothing visible anywhere inside the car. They took things like coins and a utility knife from the center console, and once I made the mistake of having a dash cam which was promptly stolen. Never again.
Criminals are not localized in SF. They roam around in cars smashing and grabbing.
Criminals are not localized in SF. They roam around in cars smashing and grabbing.
Clearly spoken by someone who has exactly zero exposure to such drugs.
For example, they're typically not addictive.
For example, they're typically not addictive.
typically not addictive.
Anyone who takes them runs the risk of being addicted to the experience hence the abuse of these drugs in the first place.
It may not be the same kind of addiction but they still go back time and time again.
Furthermore various mental issues can come from them so even if you don't get addicted you can still be harmed.
Its a useless past-time thats dangerous and is less fun than other mediums of entertainment.
Rather than reduce yourself to an incoherent mess for a while you can spend the money doing basically anything else for a better time.
Hang out with friends, travel somewhere in you state or country, play some video games, anything else is better.
Its a useless risk that should be banned, other than medical use, to protect society.
Anyone who takes them runs the risk of being addicted to the experience hence the abuse of these drugs in the first place.
It may not be the same kind of addiction but they still go back time and time again.
Furthermore various mental issues can come from them so even if you don't get addicted you can still be harmed.
Its a useless past-time thats dangerous and is less fun than other mediums of entertainment.
Rather than reduce yourself to an incoherent mess for a while you can spend the money doing basically anything else for a better time.
Hang out with friends, travel somewhere in you state or country, play some video games, anything else is better.
Its a useless risk that should be banned, other than medical use, to protect society.
You don't get addicted to experiences. You get addicted to chemicals. You are approaching a scientific topic from an emotional stance. You cannot do that.
Have you ever tried psychedelics? What makes you think they're problematic? I'm sure opiates are the primary driver of many of the problems in San Francisco, combined with a failure to charge anyone with petty property crimes. Drug prohibition doesn't work and just hurts the wrong people.
Psychedelics can induce schizophrenia, as most mind altering drugs can. The stronger the drug, the more capable.
From https://www.psychedelicsdaily.com/faq/can-a-bad-trip-cause-s...
> Research has shown that the use of LSD can trigger the onset of schizophrenia in people prone to schizophrenia. People who use LSD are more likely than anyone else with a psychotic disorder to consume it over a period of more than a few days at a time.
I am an educated adult who understands my family's history of schizo means that these drugs are no gos for me. It's just not worth it.
However, I worry that teenagers and such in their developmental years will experiment. The way these drugs are marketed by true believers you'd think they're a cure all. However, in some people they cause long-lasting, even permanent effects. A significant number of people taking psychedelics experience symptoms for years after. This is a very bad change to make to one's psyche that calls one ability to reason and decide into question.
These drugs should not be encouraged.
From https://www.psychedelicsdaily.com/faq/can-a-bad-trip-cause-s...
> Research has shown that the use of LSD can trigger the onset of schizophrenia in people prone to schizophrenia. People who use LSD are more likely than anyone else with a psychotic disorder to consume it over a period of more than a few days at a time.
I am an educated adult who understands my family's history of schizo means that these drugs are no gos for me. It's just not worth it.
However, I worry that teenagers and such in their developmental years will experiment. The way these drugs are marketed by true believers you'd think they're a cure all. However, in some people they cause long-lasting, even permanent effects. A significant number of people taking psychedelics experience symptoms for years after. This is a very bad change to make to one's psyche that calls one ability to reason and decide into question.
These drugs should not be encouraged.
That link makes claims not backed up by any sources it links to that are accessible online. If you follow the chain, it eventually gets to a book unavailable online, but I am skeptical.
Other research has shown no link between psychedelics and psychosis. [1]
This same [1] article discusses old research which may have shown a link, and speculates that the wide prevalence of various psychotic disorders may have led to spurious findings.
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.16968
Other research has shown no link between psychedelics and psychosis. [1]
This same [1] article discusses old research which may have shown a link, and speculates that the wide prevalence of various psychotic disorders may have led to spurious findings.
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2015.16968
Sorry, but I'm just going to trust my own observations of reality over some random paper. It's plainly obvious that these drugs trigger schizophrenia and other mental illnesses in a percentage of people who use them. Sometimes all it takes is a single use even. If you haven't met people who have had this happen to them then I advise you to search online for people's stories since it's not that hard to find them.
[deleted]
However, what's unknown is whether people who develop schizophrenia due to psychedelic use wouldn't have developed it anyway for some other reason. Latent schizophrenia can be triggered by things such as stress.
Besides, it's not like even given this there's no way to consume the substances safely. A simple method is to way until 25-30 years of age. Since schizophrenia most commonly develops during a person's teenage years through to early adulthood, a person who hasn't developed it by 30 probably will never develop it.
Besides, it's not like even given this there's no way to consume the substances safely. A simple method is to way until 25-30 years of age. Since schizophrenia most commonly develops during a person's teenage years through to early adulthood, a person who hasn't developed it by 30 probably will never develop it.
If you're prone to it (family with history of mental illnesses) you shouldn't use it no matter your age. Why risk it? Something like schizophrenia is no joke and ruins your life completely. And if you don't find meds that work for you you literally can't fix it and go back to normal.
People do all sorts of dangerous things that don't seem to be worth it to others. The reason is really very simple: because it's fun. What's important is that it's each person's right to decide for themselves whether it's worth the risk, without having others force their decision onto them.
What matter is that we protect society.
Fun doesn't keep the nation together, we can't decide whats right or wrong just off of fun.
If you want to seriously harm yourself I believe we need to stop you.
That includes drug addictions, I think addicts need to be forcibly helped and not given more avenues to ruin their life.
I hate this "live and let live" type thinking with drugs because it enables people to ruin their lives.
I would rather be disliked but see people be healthy and their lives go well, than be liked for my opinion but enable people to ruin their lives.
addiction is no joke and consent to it doesn't make it right!
Fun doesn't keep the nation together, we can't decide whats right or wrong just off of fun.
If you want to seriously harm yourself I believe we need to stop you.
That includes drug addictions, I think addicts need to be forcibly helped and not given more avenues to ruin their life.
I hate this "live and let live" type thinking with drugs because it enables people to ruin their lives.
I would rather be disliked but see people be healthy and their lives go well, than be liked for my opinion but enable people to ruin their lives.
addiction is no joke and consent to it doesn't make it right!
I believe a society where one is not free to use one's body however they see fit is not worth living in, and not worth keeping together. It should be opposed and sabotaged at every turn, dismantled, and remembered as an example of how good intentions can create monsters.
>I hate this "live and let live" type thinking with drugs because it enables people to ruin their lives.
Yes, one of the consequences of self-determination is that you're able to make wrong choices. You know what doesn't make any wrong choices? Cattle. The farmer decides for his cattle what and when they eat, where they sleep, when they mate and who with, and when they die. It's completely impossible for a cow to make choices so wrong that it ruins its own life. Now, I personally don't find living like cattle to be very appealing, but perhaps you disagree.
>I hate this "live and let live" type thinking with drugs because it enables people to ruin their lives.
Yes, one of the consequences of self-determination is that you're able to make wrong choices. You know what doesn't make any wrong choices? Cattle. The farmer decides for his cattle what and when they eat, where they sleep, when they mate and who with, and when they die. It's completely impossible for a cow to make choices so wrong that it ruins its own life. Now, I personally don't find living like cattle to be very appealing, but perhaps you disagree.
This is what your mentality creates by the way: https://twitter.com/ShellenbergerMD/status/15682375482748641... At some point you have to be pragmatic and realize that some mental illnesses can't be fixed with more freedom. Some people need boundaries and structure in their lives or they'll make society worse for everyone. A responsible society provides said structure for those people who need it, and lets the ones who don't be free as you claim they should be.
I'm not sure what you're pointing out in particular. The homelessness or the fighting? Homelessness is caused by poverty, not by drugs. People fight, with or without drugs. If you don't want to see people fighting in public places, you need a police force patrolling the streets that will actively break up fights, or you need a culture where people will intervene in fights they're not involved in and break them up. It would appear San Francisco has neither.
>At some point you have to be pragmatic and realize that some mental illnesses can't be fixed with more freedom.
I'm fine with a world with more than the absolute minimum number of mentally ill people. Put another way, there are things that are not worth sacrificing in order to have fewer mentally ill people.
>A responsible society provides said structure for those people who need it, and lets the ones who don't be free as you claim they should be.
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the goal of a society is to organize efforts in order to accomplish tasks that would not be possible by individuals or smaller groups. "Providing structure to those who need it" seems more like the responsibility of a hospital, not of societies in general. While a society that works like a hospital (rather than merely containing them) is conceivable, I think asserting that one that doesn't is irresponsible is going too far.
>At some point you have to be pragmatic and realize that some mental illnesses can't be fixed with more freedom.
I'm fine with a world with more than the absolute minimum number of mentally ill people. Put another way, there are things that are not worth sacrificing in order to have fewer mentally ill people.
>A responsible society provides said structure for those people who need it, and lets the ones who don't be free as you claim they should be.
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the goal of a society is to organize efforts in order to accomplish tasks that would not be possible by individuals or smaller groups. "Providing structure to those who need it" seems more like the responsibility of a hospital, not of societies in general. While a society that works like a hospital (rather than merely containing them) is conceivable, I think asserting that one that doesn't is irresponsible is going too far.
I view this as a pragmatic solution to a common problem amongst law enforcement agencies which is constrained resources. Focusing on the bad drugs and leaving the hippies alone seems like a sound step forward.
Hallucinogens have the lowest addiction potential of any illegal drug, by a large margin.
Honestly we need more people to believe this to bring this dam rent down
Exactly! Everyone here should hate this terrible place... why is the rent so damn high? I love the "I just moved here" crowd complaining about how bad things are, and I miss the pre-1999 days when artists could afford to live in the city. Even Oakland is expensive now.
[deleted]
I am frankly tired of hearing this non-sense. NYC is more expensive than SF and it is very much a vibrant place.
For a decade SF complained about tech and actively drove companies away, because they wanted “their culture” back.
Fine, then tech organizations left after covid (and their money left too), and now SF complains that tech organizations are not supporting the city anymore with their money and their employees, and you get entire areas of town (ie: Fidi) which are empty and small business are struggling. Who exactly do you think was supporting the outrageous spending and programs of San Francisco? Artists playing the piano in a bar, or hundreds of millions of dollar in taxes paid by tech and its employees?
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Now - finally - we get to see “SF culture” in full force without technology organizations and their employees: meth-addicted zombies with violent outbursts, tents everywhere, human poop and needles, salmonella outbreaks, go ahead and complete the list.
Nobody wants to live in a place like this: not the artists, not the families, and now not even tech workers. There are plenty of great cities to go to, why would anybody move to San Francisco and deal with these quality of life problems?
For a decade SF complained about tech and actively drove companies away, because they wanted “their culture” back.
Fine, then tech organizations left after covid (and their money left too), and now SF complains that tech organizations are not supporting the city anymore with their money and their employees, and you get entire areas of town (ie: Fidi) which are empty and small business are struggling. Who exactly do you think was supporting the outrageous spending and programs of San Francisco? Artists playing the piano in a bar, or hundreds of millions of dollar in taxes paid by tech and its employees?
You can’t have your cake and eat it too.
Now - finally - we get to see “SF culture” in full force without technology organizations and their employees: meth-addicted zombies with violent outbursts, tents everywhere, human poop and needles, salmonella outbreaks, go ahead and complete the list.
Nobody wants to live in a place like this: not the artists, not the families, and now not even tech workers. There are plenty of great cities to go to, why would anybody move to San Francisco and deal with these quality of life problems?
Wait, I'm complaining the tech money left?
Artists playing in piano bars... what kind of artists are you talking about?
Clearly, not the ones I am.
I agree there are some terrible policies and parts of town are struggling (and addicts too). But there were huge problems in the 90s as well (in SF an NY). Frankly, NYC is a MUCH bigger place with Manhattan alone being twice the population. But please, if you don't like it LEAVE!
Nobody likes poop or needles, nor drive-bys and side-shows those are symptoms of law enforcement and the city not giving a F#ck... but the tenderloin wasn't some beautiful panacea 25 years ago either, nor the mission, nor the dog patch. All of those places were hipster-gentrified and drove out people who did give a damn. Bringing money doesn't mean that a WETF attitude and boring consumerism won't make the place worse than you found it.
If you want to raise kids, go to the avenues or the marina or a suburb somewhere. Yes, it's horrible expensive, but why does the world owe you the lifestyle you want and the house you want in the place you want for cheap? Why does everyone else have to change the way they live for you? Because you got a FAANG job? I feel more for the people born in SF.
BTW we always called the Fidi "wine country" for the obvious reason (people drinking wine on the corner)... and that was 25 years ago when at least strip clubs could afford the rent.
I agree there are some terrible policies and parts of town are struggling (and addicts too). But there were huge problems in the 90s as well (in SF an NY). Frankly, NYC is a MUCH bigger place with Manhattan alone being twice the population. But please, if you don't like it LEAVE!
Nobody likes poop or needles, nor drive-bys and side-shows those are symptoms of law enforcement and the city not giving a F#ck... but the tenderloin wasn't some beautiful panacea 25 years ago either, nor the mission, nor the dog patch. All of those places were hipster-gentrified and drove out people who did give a damn. Bringing money doesn't mean that a WETF attitude and boring consumerism won't make the place worse than you found it.
If you want to raise kids, go to the avenues or the marina or a suburb somewhere. Yes, it's horrible expensive, but why does the world owe you the lifestyle you want and the house you want in the place you want for cheap? Why does everyone else have to change the way they live for you? Because you got a FAANG job? I feel more for the people born in SF.
BTW we always called the Fidi "wine country" for the obvious reason (people drinking wine on the corner)... and that was 25 years ago when at least strip clubs could afford the rent.
> but the tenderloin wasn't some beautiful panacea 25 years ago either, nor the mission, nor the dog patch
The dogpatch was a waste land 10 years ago, it got redeveloped thanks to new money and the new tenants that were willing to pay $$ to live there.
The problem of San Francisco is not tech (which gives resources to the city, and which every other city would do anything to have) or the lack of artists.
The problem is San Francisco is the utterly incompetent leadership that fails their citizens at every level (supervisors, mayor, school board, DA, police, etc). Technology was an incredible opportunity for this town to become world class, and now they got nothing to show for it.
How about we refocus on the real problems that are affecting this town? The tenderloin doesn’t have to be this way, the Fidi was thriving up to 2018/2019. The alleged lack of artists is at the bottom of the pile.
A world class city like San Francisco can and should do more to guarantee that no kid steps on poop or needles. Take a step back please: this is a very low bar, and these are problems that every city in the world doesn’t have. So what’s wrong with this place? Why is San Francisco a poster child for disgraceful and incompetent leadership? Why can’t it remove poops from the street with a budget of billions of dollars. What is wrong with this town?
These are the problems that we should be focusing on.
The dogpatch was a waste land 10 years ago, it got redeveloped thanks to new money and the new tenants that were willing to pay $$ to live there.
The problem of San Francisco is not tech (which gives resources to the city, and which every other city would do anything to have) or the lack of artists.
The problem is San Francisco is the utterly incompetent leadership that fails their citizens at every level (supervisors, mayor, school board, DA, police, etc). Technology was an incredible opportunity for this town to become world class, and now they got nothing to show for it.
How about we refocus on the real problems that are affecting this town? The tenderloin doesn’t have to be this way, the Fidi was thriving up to 2018/2019. The alleged lack of artists is at the bottom of the pile.
A world class city like San Francisco can and should do more to guarantee that no kid steps on poop or needles. Take a step back please: this is a very low bar, and these are problems that every city in the world doesn’t have. So what’s wrong with this place? Why is San Francisco a poster child for disgraceful and incompetent leadership? Why can’t it remove poops from the street with a budget of billions of dollars. What is wrong with this town?
These are the problems that we should be focusing on.
[deleted]
yup, its time to go to other cities like austin.
If you want the perfect place to live look for a red state but a city thats moderate and large.
You get sweet sweet low tax rates, usually affordable housing, good jobs, political extremists are more rare since liberals aren't too powerful and the conservatives basically lost their previous dominance.
Red states with large moderate cities are the place to live in the usa.
Low taxes, less crazy people, good living.
If your city is dominated by one political side completely its basically time to run away.
If you want the perfect place to live look for a red state but a city thats moderate and large.
You get sweet sweet low tax rates, usually affordable housing, good jobs, political extremists are more rare since liberals aren't too powerful and the conservatives basically lost their previous dominance.
Red states with large moderate cities are the place to live in the usa.
Low taxes, less crazy people, good living.
If your city is dominated by one political side completely its basically time to run away.
Drugs are effectively legal in San Fransisco already. Just walk down the street and take a look around. Psychedelics are not addictive and 99.999% of the people you see walking the streets like zombies are not on psychedelics.
All our problems would be solved if we simply jailed everyone who put the wrong kind of mushrooms on their pizza
Also, the Grateful Dead- whose parking lots were famous as large scale drug distribution sites- went from being counterculture to establishment in some ~25-30 years (the "house band" of the Clinton administration).
We apparently live don't live in the strangest timeline, but it's definitely the trippiest one.